EPT[D] Extended series in GSL groups - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
| ||
|
sc14s
United States5052 Posts
On April 15 2012 01:13 Kovaz wrote: It wasn't extended series. It was just the winner's advantage that comes with double elimination. You have to lose 2 series to be eliminated. The team coming from the winners bracket hasn't lost one to that point. If they lose the first series, each team has lost once, and they have to play a second series. Extended series only happen when two teams have played earlier in the tournament. eh well i have an issue with that as well same shit different name | ||
|
Negius
Netherlands290 Posts
From a viewers perspective, I would love it though. | ||
|
TaKemE
Denmark1045 Posts
On April 15 2012 01:21 sc14s wrote: eh well i have an issue with that as well same shit different name That got nothing to do with extended series and is not even close to the same. Thats how double elimination tournament has and should always work. | ||
|
KalWarkov
Germany4126 Posts
also, if player A is too dumb to win vs the others while player B wins them, its just totally fair to let player B advance. Just like the losers bracket in MLG - if a player is able to fight the long way back to play another guy again, he shouldve a fair chance. his way was a lot harder to get to the match, he first match was meaningful enough. | ||
|
Thrax
Canada1755 Posts
The concept is very simple. If you win 2 games, you advance. If you lose 2 games, you don't advance. Let's take MarineKing and Genius. They both beat each other once. Map score does not matter at all. They are both 1-1. Now let's look at their other match. Genius beat Nestea. MarineKing lost to DRG. Genius won, he advances. MarineKing lost, he doesn't advance. It's that easy. "But but but! MarineKing won one more map against Genius" - It doesn't matter at all! Even if it did matter, Genius won an entire extra set. Obviously I voted No. The system is fair as it is. | ||
zere
Germany1287 Posts
On April 14 2012 22:31 robinroz wrote: Genius 0-2 MarineKing Genius 2-1 MarineKing Genius 2-3 MarineKing ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TW7hX.jpg) tldr; everything's fine, get the abominational extended series out of your heads. | ||
|
Windd
United States161 Posts
If player X losses 0-2 in the first match then wins 2-1 and wins one last time 2-1 in a best of 3 match. Player X will win over player Y with a 4-4. However no one will be upset about this because to some level each round (which corresponds to SC2 sets) are not isolates to be analyzed as such. For two reasons things meter in fighting games or special build orders in Starcraft 2 and because everyone needs to realize that in winning a best of 3 2-0 should simply be a win outside of tie breakers.The every given series is a whole thing(sure it is arbitrary and everyone would like longer series) and to break it a apart to form extended series is breaking apart something that is in a single unit as a method of deciding advancement. Imaging turning fighting games matches into extended series? It is ridiculous and not just because meter and other mechanics but because you have just fundamentally changed the way advancement is a decided in a game citing what seems like: Well number of matches won are arbitrary what really matters are rounds. Could we further go: Rounds are arbitrary what really matter is damage that is how real skill is measured. Whoever does the most damage in a given round wins. I am not arguing that this is what extended series will turn into but that it ignores the series/set(sc2) dynamic of Starcraft 2 without giving a good reason and thus ignoring part of the way the game is played EVERYWHERE but MLG. | ||
|
Bkennedy
United States266 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
|
minilance
Canada500 Posts
On April 15 2012 01:30 zere wrote: Dont think of the GSL groups as a "group" that needs to count mapscores of players against each other, but as a double elimination bracket, because that's essentially what it is. tldr; everything's fine, get the abominational extended series out of your heads. | ||
|
Zyrre
Sweden291 Posts
You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own. Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it. | ||
|
-JoKeR-
Canada387 Posts
| ||
|
Zhazulo
Sweden226 Posts
| ||
|
Windd
United States161 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote: The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played. You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own. Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it. I remember there being a statistical analysis for extended series being more accurate in deciding the best player. However it is more accurate in virtue of having more games, but the way it decided to play those games is not the best way (it seems rather unjust toward the person who lost first). I think codifying rules that give more games is a great idea. However it should be done with out forgetting about important facts about how the skill is measured it self. | ||
|
Angel_
United States1617 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11524 Posts
| ||
|
Zyrre
Sweden291 Posts
On April 15 2012 04:23 Windd wrote: I remember there being a statistical analysis for extended series being more accurate in deciding the best player. However it is more accurate in virtue of having more games, but the way it decided to play those games is not the best way (it seems rather unjust toward the person who lost first). I think codifying rules that give more games is a great idea. However it should be done with out forgetting about important facts about how the skill is measured it self. I mostly agree. Debating wether or not extended series is fair in and of itself seems moot though. We should be thinking of it relative to the two BO3s we end up with in the current most used system. In this case I see the extended series being more accurate and fair. | ||
|
Xlancer
United States126 Posts
| ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
On April 15 2012 03:56 Zyrre wrote: The reason for using extended series is to more accurately decide who is the best player, since that is what a tournament is trying to do. It simply increases the accuracy while only adding a very small amount of extra games played. You could reasonably argue that it detracts from excitement. Personally I would rather that they are more accurate, but to each his own. Most people here though seem to argue my first statement, without using any arguments for it. The goal of a tournament isn't to determine who the best player is; the goal of a tournament is to decide a winner. Making a tournament about determining who the best player is turns it into complete nonsense. If you wanted it to be about that then you would strive for as much granularity in your judgement of a player's performance as possible. If it was about determining who's the best then shouldn't a proxy 2-rax or 6-pool count for less than an epic comeback in a 40 minute macro game? Well it doesn't. Every map win is worth the same. Every BoX win is worth the same. The tournament doesn't care about the fashion in which you won, if it was nice play or ugly play, if you beat a champion or a last minute replacement. | ||
| ||
