|
It ticks me off to no end that there are people that dont get what a nonsense the extended series is. Not because I think it breaks the game or something, but because i simply can not stand things that are completely illogical.
How can some here not see that you get penalized twice for loosing if you meet the same player you lost against again by chance? Why does it even need an example to illustrate this? Its blatantly obvious.
Also, I think its very sad that MLG will be a semi-closed competition now with the huge advantages for the top16. I guess some need this "known characters,rivalries, drama" stuff, but I just want to see good games. The system may work with Halo, as the top16 here may be close to being the best players, and its possible to build a hype around them. But in sc2, where you just know that these are not the real top16, I dont see how this can work the same way.
|
The argument for it is that if one player wins 2-0 the first time but loses 2-1 the second time he's actually won 4 maps but only lost 3 against that player, so it's, in some sense, unfair that he gets eliminated.
I don't agree with it, but that's the argument.
|
On February 28 2011 09:28 hugman wrote:
The argument for it is that if one player wins 2-0 the first time but loses 2-1 the second time he's actually won 4 maps but only lost 3 against that player, so it's, in some sense, unfair that he gets eliminated.
I don't agree with it, but that's the argument.
And if its the other way around and the player wins 2-1 the first time but loses 2-0 the second time, he is still not out with the extended series rule, although he is 2-3 behind against that player. Yep, that argument makes sense, lol.
|
I play a lot of Halo, and the reason extended series is so well like for halo is that there are 11 Map-gametypes combos (Capture the flag on Countdown is an example). If two teams meet up again, the extended series makes it so they don't play on the maps that they have already played on. The extended series means that they run through all 11 map-gametypes and the better team will move on. It is very possible for a team to lose 3-0 because they got all of their worst maps and come back 6-5 in the extended series because they are better at all 11 map-gametypes overall.
Now, assuming SC2's map pool is great, the extended series should show who is the better player at most of the maps overall.
|
This is going to be so intense.
|
On February 28 2011 09:28 hugman wrote:
The argument for it is that if one player wins 2-0 the first time but loses 2-1 the second time he's actually won 4 maps but only lost 3 against that player, so it's, in some sense, unfair that he gets eliminated.
I don't agree with it, but that's the argument.
This argument never gives the whole story. The player who won the first time had to lose to SOMEONE ELSE; the other player didn't.
|
On February 28 2011 09:28 hugman wrote:
The argument for it is that if one player wins 2-0 the first time but loses 2-1 the second time he's actually won 4 maps but only lost 3 against that player, so it's, in some sense, unfair that he gets eliminated.
I don't agree with it, but that's the argument.
But they are two completely different games, being played at different times in the tournament at different points in the bracket! It's completely preposterous to try and link those games.
The better player will win the second Bo3. That's it.
Just imagine two teams playing group stage at the World Cup, then meeting again later in the finals and one team would be up 1-0 at the start of the finals. You do not take your wins/losses against a player with you in a tournament and play again under these circumstances. That's just absolutely preposterous to me.
|
On February 28 2011 16:41 Bobster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 09:28 hugman wrote:
The argument for it is that if one player wins 2-0 the first time but loses 2-1 the second time he's actually won 4 maps but only lost 3 against that player, so it's, in some sense, unfair that he gets eliminated.
I don't agree with it, but that's the argument. But they are two completely different games, being played at different times in the tournament at different points in the bracket! It's completely preposterous to try and link those games. The better player will win the second Bo3. That's it. Just imagine two teams playing group stage at the World Cup, then meeting again later in the finals and one team would be up 1-0 at the start of the finals. You do not take your wins/losses against a player with you in a tournament and play again under these circumstances. That's just absolutely preposterous to me.
Again.
People are arguing apples and oranges. The World Cup does not even have the same format as MLG. There is no comparison to be made.
If you wanted to make one, the closest you could get is the World Cup and the Championship Bracket. Pool Play and then the bracket (which is still pretty far off). The Pool Play matches do not extend to the bracket. So, again, you did nothing but add a comparison that made no sense.
Those arguing the player already lost to someone else to go down into the Loser's Bracket are forgetting that the person went further in the Winner's Bracket and in theory played a better person.
I understand things that are different make people angry, but think about it for awhile because the arguments being made in this topic really aren't making sense, to be honest.
|
17. NS.Nadagast (T) - 965
Fixed. Nadagast doesn't have any offical affiliation with LG. He is sponsored by Nerdstomper.
Looking forward to the up and coming MLG. I wonder how the larger stage will play into people that attend for each game, and how the format will fair for both games. (Also, if halo and sc2 use this, what format is black ops using?)
|
On February 28 2011 09:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL.
In your example Blue was not the sole factor in the eliminatation of Green. It was the combined efforts of Blue and whoever Green lost to in the winners bracket. Thats why its flawed to look at it just as one big game between 2 players.
I think of it like this:
Winning 2x Bo3 is winning 4 games out of 6 chances.
Winning one Bo7 is winning 4 games out of 7 chances.
It give an extra chance for both players to mess up, which pairs of players in the same bracket (who arent subject to an extended series) do not get.
|
Sweden5554 Posts
The point structure can't be right for the earlier seasons, there were no games afaik to determine different placements for people for 17th to 24th and 25th to 32nd and in the earlier point tables I saw they were all given the same points.
Also IdrA has 1440 points according to the list in the OP and he got 1200 for first in DC and then he must have gotten 240 from the national championship in Dallas, but there's no placement that gives 240 unless it's the point for 17th to 24th all get 240.
|
Extended series is terrible.
|
I'm so sick of people complaining about extended series and then basically punctuating their complaint with "I don't even understand why it's in there"
If you don't understand WHY, your complaints probably aren't very valid, are they?
Worse though, are the people who dislike it simply to jump on the bandwagon. Have a damn opinion of your own sometime guys. It's not so bad. I've yet to see one person who dislikes it give a succinct reason as to why. The best arguments came from Inc and Idra and even those were pretty damn shallow.
|
279 Posts
Before I dive in, Motbob has made a great post on the way the new format works here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196798. I have a few minor corrections/clarifications/responses.
- While technically true that someone who drops from the first round open winners to losers would play 21 bo3's if they were to WIN the tournament, this is an absolute worst case scenario. The reality is that we're much more likely to see, at most, 13 to 14 bo3's spread over 3 days (and with 2 of those matches being consolation matches) from folks that make it out of the Open. By comparison, Teams that start in the Championship Bracket and take 1st place would play between 7 and 14 bo3's.
- Many folks have made this point, but I'll re-iterate it. MLG tournaments are, to some extent, an endurance run—or as we like to think of it, consistent winning performance. Because we want as many people to join the tournament as possible (and not just the top 16-32 players), we have large brackets. By definition, this means many more matches. And our tournament happens in 2.25 days of competition (friday is a 1/2 day, saturday is all day and sunday is 3/4 of a day). That's a very short timeframe for so many matches. That’s the type of events we’ve always run, and I will absolutely grant that its very different than an Online competition (although I’m sure that many people play 20 or 30 maps over the course of the weekend) or other tournaments. The expansion of the Championship Bracket to SC2 is, in part, a response to the concerns of the top pro’s from 2010 on how many matches they have to play.
- One aspect of the Championship Bracket that has not been mentioned, however, is that the “protection” also works in reverse. Open players are less likely to get paired up against a top pro in Winners 1 (and even 2), especially with a bracket as big as ours. That means more matches that an open bracket player gets to play—and a better tournament experience for them.
- I want to also point out that John Nelson (MLG Anakin, the MLG League Commissioner) specifically designed Pool Play so that there would be more interesting matches for you guys to watch all weekend. As much as I like a good trouncing, watching Jinro, Idra or other top players trounce an Open player isn’t all that interesting to broadcast or spectate.
- On the subject of the finals—I’ve seen a lot of requests for bo5 or bo7 finals--obviously I don’t want an anticlimactic finals, but asking players who have just pounded their way through 10 or more bo3’s over the course of a weekend to play “just two more maps” at the finals is brutal. That’s no longer an endurance test, that’s just cruel and unusual.
- Regarding extended series (I don't think I've ever posted about it, so here goes), this represents a core philosophy of MLG’s league. A tournament should have a memory of your entire performance in that tournament, not just how you’re doing in that round/match. Fundamentally, that means that if you beat me in an earlier round, I should have to work really hard to knock you out of the tournament if we meet up again later. Think about it from this perspective, Extended Series basically says that if we play each other, the total number of rounds won should determine the winner, not just where we meet in the bracket.
Thanks, as always, for all the feedback.
Lee
|
United States7481 Posts
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
|
8751 Posts
On February 28 2011 18:30 Huxley wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 09:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL. In your example Blue was not the sole factor in the eliminatation of Green. It was the combined efforts of Blue and whoever Green lost to in the winners bracket. Thats why its flawed to look at it just as one big game between 2 players. I think of it like this: Winning 2x Bo3 is winning 4 games out of 6 chances. Winning one Bo7 is winning 4 games out of 7 chances. It give an extra chance for both players to mess up, which pairs of players in the same bracket (who arent subject to an extended series) do not get.
You've got to explain why it's a flaw. You're not making any arguments here. You're just posting how the rules play out and saying "it shouldn't be like that". You haven't gotten any farther than saying "I'm against extended series" and then running a bunch of scenarios where extended series are involved and saying "yep that shit is flawed".
For example: I think playing bo5's in a bracket is flawed. A guy can go 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 and play against a guy who has gone 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 and then lose 2-3, and this guy who wins 85% of his games does not advance while the guy who wins 60% of his games does get to advance. We should fix this by having bo1's, not bo5's, so that the guy with the higher win percentage always advances. We had a flaw and now we don't so obviously running bo1's in a bracket is better than bo5's.
There are flaws in every system. Patching up a flaw doesn't necessarily improve the system. That's why MLG always talks about their philosophy of running leagues, their belief that the tournament should have a memory, etc. That's where the argument is at. You posting your scenarios are way behind. Like I said, it's an impasse. Majority of SC fans don't like extended series because they don't understand the issue so they have no chance to make a decision, and being against extended series is their default position.
|
279 Posts
On March 01 2011 04:00 Antoine wrote:
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series.
|
I understand that MLG has this core philosophy thing going on with the extended series. However as a spectator it creates anti-climatic matches. Extended series in SC2 gives the previous winner a huge advantage because unlike Halo, even the best player in the world loses 40% of the time to their peers.
There was a study done in SC1 that said something along the lines of 90% of all BO3 are won by the person who wins the first game. Extended series is even worse because it gives one player a 2-0 or 2-1 advantage. Its not very exciting to watch a match when the odds are so heavily stacked against one player because of some philosophical principle.
I think back to MLG Raleigh and that was the most anticlimatic final ever. Select was exhausted by running through the losers bracket all tournament long, and when he finally got to the finals, not only did he face the daunting task of needing to win 2 series to Idra's 1, one of them was a BO7 extended series where I believe he started off with a 0-2 disadvantage. I didnt even bother watching it because the odds were so heavily stacked against him. It doesnt need to be that way just because of some philosophy.
|
United States7481 Posts
On March 01 2011 04:29 MLG_Lee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:00 Antoine wrote:
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series.
That's exactly my question: why isn't it extended if the lower bracket wins the first bo3, so as to be consistent with the rest of the tournament?
|
On March 01 2011 04:39 kNightLite wrote:
I understand that MLG has this core philosophy thing going on with the extended series. However as a spectator it creates anti-climatic matches. Extended series in SC2 gives the previous winner a huge advantage because unlike Halo, even the best player in the world loses 40% of the time to their peers.
There was a study done in SC1 that said something along the lines of 90% of all BO3 are won by the person who wins the first match. Extended series is even worse because it gives one player a 2-0 or 2-1 advantage. Its not very exciting to watch a match when the odds are so heavily stacked against one player because of some philosophical principle.
I think back to MLG Raleigh and that was the most anticlimatic final ever. Select was exhausted by running through the losers bracket all tournament long, and when he finally got to the finals, not only did he face the daunting task of needing to win 2 series to Idra's 1, one of them was a BO7 extended series where I believe he started off with a 0-2 disadvantage. I didnt even bother watching it because the odds were so heavily stacked against him. It doesnt need to be that way just because of some philosophy.
Select and Idra happened in D.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
