| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
justinpal
United States3810 Posts
On August 16 2011 00:31 Severedevil wrote: Mirror matchups on symmetrical, two-spawn maps are the only thing that's fully fair, but we don't make tournaments out of those because it's not as exciting. Sorry, we are talking about SC not rock, papper, scissors. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
Chances are that if one of the players is outclassed it doesn´t really matter because we will get boring finals. | ||
|
Cyrak
Canada536 Posts
That said, I absolutely hate the MLG "extended series" system. That is something that really needs to go. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
Even the 2BoX rules is unfair because the player with the worse win-to-loss ratio through the course of the tournament overall (including finals) can win the whole thing. | ||
|
Cartel
Canada255 Posts
In double elimination tournaments, where players get 2 chances at winning the trophy, it is absolutely the only FAIR way to have it so that the final match between the two players at the end should have 1-2 possible sets. If you dont agree with this system, i highly suggest you rethink it completely and thoroughly, as to the reason for it to be that way. If you still do not understand it, what that means is that you think its fair that the player who has lost a series to someone deserves an unfair advantage over the guy who is at the winners bracket and hasn't lost a single set. That is what is unfair. edit- I agree with Cyrix about the MLG system, that absolutely has to change. It is 100% not a fair system. | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
If you want an exciting final - then go single elimination like the NASL. But then dont cry, when people like Ret fall in the first round (ok you may cry about seeding^^). You cant say "everyone should have a second chance" and then say "Oh but the one guy there should only have one chance!" | ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
loser has to win 2 best of 5s (best of x) winner just has to win 1 best of 5 | ||
|
ProxyKnoxy
United Kingdom2576 Posts
ALL finals should be a BO7 in my opinion, although that would probably never happen, the MLG finals were a let down as it was so short | ||
|
Bobster
Germany3075 Posts
On August 16 2011 00:37 Cartel wrote: I have to say im surprised at the polls suggesting most pple think its not fine the way it is. Same here. Then again, there are also always 25-30% of people who are fine with the shitty extended series rule at MLG, so it's hard to fathom wtf people are thinking sometimes. On August 16 2011 00:29 JustPassingBy wrote: That seems exceedingly arbitrary to me.No, I'd rather see this that all players are allowed to lose one series except in the grand finals, because it weights more than the other sets beforehand. It's a double elimination format except for the finals. I don't think that's logical or particularly fair. Double elimination is a good tournament format the way it is, I don't see a need to change it. | ||
|
Malinor
Germany4758 Posts
| ||
|
Cartel
Canada255 Posts
On August 16 2011 00:40 ProxyKnoxy wrote: I don't agree at all that the winner of the upper bracket should get an advantage. I don't know why but I just plain disagree with it. ALL finals should be a BO7 in my opinion, although that would probably never happen, the MLG finals were a let down as it was so short I can understand why you would believe the system is unfair, but thats where there may be a misunderstanding. The upper bracket player does not have an advantage. | ||
|
KevinIX
United States2472 Posts
| ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
On August 15 2011 23:49 Sveet wrote: Its not about "having the upper hand" its about set losses in bracket. The person in grand finals from winners bracket has not lost to anyone yet, while the person in losers bracket has. If a bracket is double elimination, a person still in the winners bracket has to lose twice to be knocked out of the tournament and that holds true even in grand finals. The person coming from the losers bracket has already lost 1 set which means he can't lose another one or he will be eliminated. this. double elimination it's the most logical and is applied in every other video game tournament that uses double elimination. how does this guy's post not make absolute sense? it will also create hype finals anyways, because the advantage isn't impossible since the bo x are separate. having a person up 1 game out of a best of 7 makes no logical sense. it is arbitrary (1 out of 7?) 1 set = bo 3 (for semi-finals in losers/winners onwards should be bo5) | ||
|
GGruss
Sweden121 Posts
I like the true double-elim format best. That is if you come from the losers bracket you need to win two series, from the winners just one. It's fair and has the potential to be really exciting. The OP mixes up extended series and double-elim, and they are two different things. | ||
|
Malinor
Germany4758 Posts
On August 16 2011 00:37 Cartel wrote: I have to say im surprised at the polls suggesting most pple think its not fine the way it is. In double elimination tournaments, where players get 2 chances at winning the trophy, it is absolutely the only FAIR way to have it so that the final match between the two players at the end should have 1-2 possible sets. I think that nearly all people that vote for "up one game" would also say that it is "fine the way it is", just that they prefer a slightly different modell, as long as the player from the Winners Bracket gets some kind of advantage. We can still disagree if the adjustment is fair (since it is quite arbitrary), but right now 80% of the votes want to give an advantage to this player, which I believe is a pretty reasonable number. | ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
On August 16 2011 00:48 GGruss wrote: How is a bo7/9 more exciting than a bo3/5? I don't see it... it's more games, sure, but the sc2 scene doesn't lack för games to watch. Onesided finals in a bo7/9 suck way more than onesided finals in a bo3/5 I like the true double-elim format best. That is if you come from the losers bracket you need to win two series, from the winners just one. It's fair and has the potential to be really exciting. The OP mixes up extended series and double-elim, and they are two different things. people who still don't understand what real double elimination is, check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_elimination no point in using double elimination if you don't use this format. | ||
|
GiantHandBanana
United States51 Posts
- series starts out best of 3 or 5 or whatever the format is (preferably 5) - winner's bracket player only needs to win that bo3/5 - if the loser's bracket player wins the series, it becomes a bo5/7 with the scores carrying over. Sort of an extended series, but not really. It gives the winner's bracket player a pretty significant advantage at first, but he can lose it pretty quickly if he makes mistakes. Blizzard invitational: + Show Spoiler + In this system, select and sheth would have gone to a game 7. Would have been amazing imo. | ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
Sure if the WB looses, he'd just loose 1 BoX, but he still lost one that he started with an advantage. | ||
|
Shagg
Finland825 Posts
| ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
On August 16 2011 01:02 Zarahtra wrote: Personally I feel it's a bit silly to justify the way it's done from it being named double elimination. I'd personally want a smaller advantage that the WB gets, since these 2 game finals are such a killer. The WB deserves an advantage, but I don't really agree to the reasoning that because it's called double elimination, it must be that he's up 1 BoX. Sure if the WB looses, he'd just loose 1 BoX, but he still lost one that he started with an advantage. it's not an advantage that the winner gets, it's even footing... everyone else has lost a BoX, so he needs to lose TWO BoX to lose the grand finals. a smaller advantage for the WB? that's not fair for him because everyone else used the exact same advantage. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Stellar Fest
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
FEL
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
herO vs Classic
Percival vs Rogue
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
