EPTThere's a reason nearly every MLG grand finals have been boring and onesided.
[D] Extended series in GSL groups - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ighox
Norway580 Posts
There's a reason nearly every MLG grand finals have been boring and onesided. | ||
|
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
| ||
|
ninjamyst
United States1903 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Player A Player B Player C Player D A - D B - C A - C B - D C - D A - B everybody plays everybody once; easy and leads to precise results. And because there is a difference between getting 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, there is no game that doesn't matter. | ||
|
zaii
Guam2611 Posts
On April 14 2012 23:19 Micket wrote: Extended series is shit. 'Winning' is measured by victories in Best of 3. Not number of matches played. oh is that the new definition nowadays? | ||
|
Purple Haze
United Kingdom200 Posts
On April 14 2012 23:25 Big J wrote: No, they should just change it to a normal group system: Player A Player B Player C Player D A - D B - C A - C B - D C - D A - B everybody plays everybody once; easy and leads to precise results. And because there is a difference between getting 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, there is no game that doesn't matter. Precise results? Every tournament with normal groups leads to casters and fans spending half their time trying to calculate map scores and head to head records. I'd rather see more tournaments use the GSL system. This whole post is based on the fundamental fallacy that beating someone in one series means you're 'better' than them. You had your advantage, they had to win an extra series to get to this match while you could afford to lose one. There also shouldn't be a situation where the person who came out of the losers' match gets an advantage against one of the players in the winners' match but not the other, it's just stupid as we see at every MLG. | ||
|
ElusoryX
Singapore2047 Posts
| ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
In Tennis you can go 6-0, 6-7, 6-7 and lose. Is that unfair because you won more games but still lost? Maybe, but the rules aren't about being fair, sports aren't fair. A game is a game, the score in the game doesn't matter. A set is a set and the score doesn't matter. Same thing in SC2, a map win is a win no matter if it was a double proxygate or a 40 min macro game, and a Bo3 win is a Bo3 win no matter if it's 2-1 or 2-0. | ||
|
FuRong
New Zealand3089 Posts
You can win a tennis match 7-6, 1-6, 7-5 even though the score on games is 15-17 against you. There have already been huge polls and debate about extended series in other threads, and the result of that is that neither side will change their opinions, but overall the people opposing extended series outnumber those who support it. Edit: looks like the guy right above me beat me to the punch | ||
|
Bidj
France98 Posts
On April 14 2012 23:25 Big J wrote: No, they should just change it to a normal group system: Player A Player B Player C Player D A - D B - C A - C B - D C - D A - B everybody plays everybody once; easy and leads to precise results. And because there is a difference between getting 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th, there is no game that doesn't matter. Nope, wrong. What you are looking for is (I believe) "round-robin". And there are a ton of cases where games does't matter for some players (A), leading to another player (B) advancing or not depending of the effort the player (A) is willing to put in his insignificant (for him) game. | ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
| ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
On April 14 2012 23:39 Koshi wrote: It makes more sense to use extended series in the GSL than in MLG. True. ...but it would still be fucking terrible >.> | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 14 2012 23:37 Bidj wrote: Nope, wrong. What you are looking for is (I believe) "round-robin". And there are a ton of cases where games does't matter for some players (A), leading to another player (B) advancing or not depending of the effort the player (A) is willing to put in his insignificant (for him) game. In the GSL there is a difference between 3rd or 4th place, so there is nearly always something worth playing for. Not to mention that the basic rules of sportmanship apply to any game in the group (so not playing ones best should not happen) and as far as I know, this kind of system is the most farspread among all 4player groups in the world of sport. The current GSL system already has the flaw that a 0-2 player doesn't get to play a 3rd game and possibly secure a 3rd place, similarily for a 2-0 player that can't get 2nd or even 3rd anymore, but is already given first place. | ||
|
flagg
Sweden123 Posts
| ||
|
Hiea
Denmark1538 Posts
I do agree that the hype is less, and It also feels less epic than a GSL finals, BUT, double elimination ensures the best players are in the finals, and not that the best players eliminated eachother in the Ro8 or earlier. The winner of winners finals should always get an advantage, as for how MLG works i would love if they did Bo9 with the player from winners bracket gets a 2-0 lead, regardless if they played before. GSL is fine because both players are have lost 1 series, but I do prefer Round Robin.. only problem is when people already advanced or got knocked out they have no gain for themself, which I believe is fixed by adding a prize spot for every single spot in the group (IPL did this) | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
| ||
|
Netsky
Australia1155 Posts
Or maybe this is a troll...well played sir, well played. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 15 2012 00:13 Derez wrote: The GSL format is perfect as it is. Extended series lead to garbage, uninteresting games and round robin is not a viable alternative because playing 6 bo3's for every day of pool play would simply be too long. Tournaments need to be watchable from an entertainment perspective without having to sit in front of your TV for 8 hours. round robin are 6 bo3's. The system right now is 5 bo3's, I don't think this is the big problem. | ||
|
Kovaz
Canada233 Posts
| ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
| ||
| ||
