|
On June 17 2013 05:26 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 05:24 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 17 2013 05:22 Plexa wrote:On June 17 2013 05:20 Vindicare605 wrote:
Of course it's back guys, this is how they do double elimination.
Would you all rather have traditional double elimination where the person coming from the lower bracket has to win two series to win the finals?
It's double elimination, viewers want double elimination. This is part of what makes double elimination what it is. I don't understand the whining about it at all. Sometimes the 'fairest' option is not the best option for the viewers. Let's be honest here Plexa, the viewers are going to complain about something, no matter how much you try to appease them. Extended Series is actually better for the viewers than the double series format we had at Blizzcon and IPL and people really hated that shit. I didn't hear any complaints when people assumed that extended series wasn't going to be present at this MLG, knowing that it was going to be a double elim bracket. You have to ask yourself whether MLG is a tournament where you want the best player to win, or if you want the viewers to have the best possible viewing experience. To have the best player win I would argue in defense of extended series, but I would argue that extended series is not the best thing for viewers.
I disagree with this. I think the extended series does a much worse job of reducing variance and thus has a higher probability of not rewarding the best player. The problem as I see it is that it overpunishes a player that that might have been a bit unlucky in the first match.
I am sure something well professioned in math would be able to proove this.
|
Extended series is just kicking the underdog when he's coming back. I can't see it any other way.
|
I'm actually quite fine with it as long as it doesn't happen in the finals.
Scenario's compared to normal double elim (2 bo3's):
2-0 in the first match: Player coming from the lower bracket has to win 2 bo3's, one with a 2-0.
2-1 in the first match: Bo3 the player from the lower bracket has to win a bo3, followed by either a bo1 or a bo3 your opponent has to win 2-0.
Plus, extended series has led to some cool scenario's: Life's comeback vs flash, MVP's comeback vs MC. It's not all that bad as long as it doesn't ruin the finals.
|
On June 17 2013 05:26 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 05:24 Shikyo wrote:On June 17 2013 05:20 Vindicare605 wrote:
Of course it's back guys, this is how they do double elimination.
Would you all rather have traditional double elimination where the person coming from the lower bracket has to win two series to win the finals?
It's double elimination, viewers want double elimination. This is part of what makes double elimination what it is. I don't understand the whining about it at all. Um, yeah? Double elimination = lose 2 series. If you win all until finals you need to lose 2 series. Otherwise it's not double elimination. Except people would hate that even more than the extended series. This is how MLG compromises. You can't just decide to make the later rounds a single elimination tournament because that would essentially punish a player for winning through the group stages and lower brackets because they're denied the same double elimination that everyone who loses before that gets.
Maybe this is just because of my love of the fgc, but few things are more exciting than someone "resetting" the bracket. I know it says that this only occurs outside of the finals, but honestly extended series doesn't make any sense anywhere except the finals. The losers bracket is "you lose, you're out". Winners bracket is "if you lose, you go to losers". Just because the person you play in losers is someone you beat in winners doesn't mean you should get an advantage. You had an advantage by being in winners this whole time and being allowed to lose and still be alive.
|
On June 17 2013 06:13 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 05:26 Plexa wrote:On June 17 2013 05:24 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 17 2013 05:22 Plexa wrote:On June 17 2013 05:20 Vindicare605 wrote:
Of course it's back guys, this is how they do double elimination.
Would you all rather have traditional double elimination where the person coming from the lower bracket has to win two series to win the finals?
It's double elimination, viewers want double elimination. This is part of what makes double elimination what it is. I don't understand the whining about it at all. Sometimes the 'fairest' option is not the best option for the viewers. Let's be honest here Plexa, the viewers are going to complain about something, no matter how much you try to appease them. Extended Series is actually better for the viewers than the double series format we had at Blizzcon and IPL and people really hated that shit. I didn't hear any complaints when people assumed that extended series wasn't going to be present at this MLG, knowing that it was going to be a double elim bracket. You have to ask yourself whether MLG is a tournament where you want the best player to win, or if you want the viewers to have the best possible viewing experience. To have the best player win I would argue in defense of extended series, but I would argue that extended series is not the best thing for viewers. I disagree with this. I think the extended series does a much worse job of reducing variance and thus has a higher probability of not rewarding the best player. The problem as I see it is that it overpunishes a player that that might have been a bit unlucky in the first match. I am sure something well professioned in math would be able to proove this.
No it's been proven over and over that with extended series the better player wins more often, just due to the increase in games decreasing variance.
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
Most people don't seem to get the rationale behind extended series. Here is an example of why it is used by MLG:
In a double-elimination bracket you have 4 players; one is an overwhelmingly superior player, lets call him Innovation, his first opponent is a player who is by far the weakest in the group, lets call him Bronzie; the two other players are random foreign pros, who don't stand a chance against Innovation, but can beat Bronzie 100 times out of 100. They play out their games, and foreigner A beats foreigner B 2-0 . He goes on to get stomped by Innovation, while foreigner B crushes Bronzie. The two foreigners play again, and this time foreigner B beats foreigner A 2-1. Despite foreigner A beating foreigner B, three games out of five, he doesn't advance while B does. His performance in the first series means absolutely nothing. Therefore with extended series, MLG makes the result of the first series meaningful.
This is an exaggerated example of course, but scenarios similar to this could and have happened before, and the fans complained a lot about them, so extended series aren't entirely without merit. Whether to use them is certainly debatable, but its not a completely black and white issue as some people in this thread have painted it out to be.
|
On June 17 2013 06:41 BrokenMirage wrote:
Most people don't seem to get the rationale behind extended series. Here is an example of why it is used by MLG:
In a double-elimination bracket you have 4 players; one is an overwhelmingly superior player, lets call him Innovation, his first opponent is a player who is by far the weakest in the group, lets call him Bronzie; the two other players are random foreign pros, who don't stand a chance against Innovation, but can beat Bronzie 100 times out of 100. They play out their games, and foreigner A beats foreigner B 2-0 . He goes on to get stomped by Innovation, while foreigner B crushes Bronzie. The two foreigners play again, and this time foreigner B beats foreigner A 2-1. Despite foreigner A beating foreigner B, three games out of five, he doesn't advance while B does. His performance in the first series means absolutely nothing. Therefore with extended series, MLG makes the result of the first series meaningful.
This is an exaggerated example of course, but scenarios similar to this could and have happened before, and the fans complained a lot about them, so extended series aren't entirely without merit. Whether to use them is certainly debatable, but its not a completely black and white issue as some people in this thread have painted it out to be.
Of course his performance in the first series means nothing, he just threw whatever it could mean away by losing to Innovatio, imo.
edit: also in general the player in the loser bracket has to play alot more games. so that's another advantage, the winner also saves stamina.
|
On June 17 2013 06:41 BrokenMirage wrote:
Most people don't seem to get the rationale behind extended series. Here is an example of why it is used by MLG:
In a double-elimination bracket you have 4 players; one is an overwhelmingly superior player, lets call him Innovation, his first opponent is a player who is by far the weakest in the group, lets call him Bronzie; the two other players are random foreign pros, who don't stand a chance against Innovation, but can beat Bronzie 100 times out of 100. They play out their games, and foreigner A beats foreigner B 2-0 . He goes on to get stomped by Innovation, while foreigner B crushes Bronzie. The two foreigners play again, and this time foreigner B beats foreigner A 2-1. Despite foreigner A beating foreigner B, three games out of five, he doesn't advance while B does. His performance in the first series means absolutely nothing. Therefore with extended series, MLG makes the result of the first series meaningful.
This is an exaggerated example of course, but scenarios similar to this could and have happened before, and the fans complained a lot about them, so extended series aren't entirely without merit. Whether to use them is certainly debatable, but its not a completely black and white issue as some people in this thread have painted it out to be.
Why should your previous result matter? I never understood the very notion of this idea. New match, fresh start. Foreigner A just need to beat his next opponent (doesn't matter if its Innovation or Actionjezus) to win while foreigner B got his back against the wall the whole time. So saying Foreigner A performance was meaningless is wrong. If they meet again its because Foreigner A lost his advantage from previous match. Why on earth does he gets a new one?
|
here's an idea: don't use the double elimination format.
there might be a reason no other sc2 tournament uses it..
|
It was never gone..... they just invented brackets that made it impossible to have an extended series apart from in the semi finals. Now they've had to drop that format, extended series will be happening a lot.
|
...... why, its universally hated.
Like was the dude making this decision whacked on the head with a shovel
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On June 17 2013 06:55 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 06:41 BrokenMirage wrote:
Most people don't seem to get the rationale behind extended series. Here is an example of why it is used by MLG:
In a double-elimination bracket you have 4 players; one is an overwhelmingly superior player, lets call him Innovation, his first opponent is a player who is by far the weakest in the group, lets call him Bronzie; the two other players are random foreign pros, who don't stand a chance against Innovation, but can beat Bronzie 100 times out of 100. They play out their games, and foreigner A beats foreigner B 2-0 . He goes on to get stomped by Innovation, while foreigner B crushes Bronzie. The two foreigners play again, and this time foreigner B beats foreigner A 2-1. Despite foreigner A beating foreigner B, three games out of five, he doesn't advance while B does. His performance in the first series means absolutely nothing. Therefore with extended series, MLG makes the result of the first series meaningful.
This is an exaggerated example of course, but scenarios similar to this could and have happened before, and the fans complained a lot about them, so extended series aren't entirely without merit. Whether to use them is certainly debatable, but its not a completely black and white issue as some people in this thread have painted it out to be. Of course his performance in the first series means nothing, he just threw whatever it could mean away by losing to Innovatio, imo. edit: also in general the player in the loser bracket has to play alot more games. so that's another advantage, the winner also saves stamina.
One could argue that since both players stand no chance against Innovation, and have no chances at being eliminated by Bronzie, a player could simply forfeit the series if they wanted, and the extended series prevents that. Your points are valid of course, and I personally do not like extended series, but I want to shut up the people who think extended series are completely worthless as a concept.
|
On June 17 2013 07:05 MadProbe wrote:
here's an idea: don't use the double elimination format.
there might be a reason no other sc2 tournament uses it..
lol..... GSL uses it in the group stages, they are a double elim bracket between 4 people. Lots of other tourneys use double elim too...... dont talk about what you don't know.
|
I honestly like extended serie, i think its fair for the players and it add extra meaning to the day1 games.
|
Double elimination good, extended series bad. They come to the finals from the loser's bracket, it should be a clean start, BO7. First one to win four games in the finals is champion, period.
|
Everyone has grown to dislike the extended series, but tolerates that actual coin flips are used to determine tie-breaker matches? I find that far more "unfair" than a game or two disadvantage in a bo7.
|
On June 17 2013 07:11 Ichabod wrote:
Everyone has grown to dislike the extended series, but tolerates that actual coin flips are used to determine tie-breaker matches? I find that far more "unfair" than a game or two disadvantage in a bo7.
GSL and double elim is a hidden coin flip though, the initial pairings affect the probability of who advances.
Just because Dreamhack flips an actual coin doesn't make them worse than GSL/WCS.
|
I don't mind the rules as long as they are consistent throughout each season. GSL was really annoying for me because they kept changing the bracket format every season.
|
Of course it's back - MLG will never give up. I think that this is the most stubborn organization in eSports... Maybe KeSPA is worse, but MLG is close second.
Thank God that Blizzard gets it and WCS is single elimination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
