|
Canada456 Posts
On June 17 2013 07:10 Reborn8u wrote:
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.
You do realize that even without extended series, by double elimination, if a player goes into a finals and say they haven't met before, they end up playing 2 BO3 where the guy from Winners only has to win one.
You don't get clean BO7 Finals with double elimination. They could if they played it Swiss, but that would need 50-100 more computers at every location. They could do BO7 clean finals with Single Elimination, however the top 8/16 are going to be quite a bit more random.
It's not a rule that's out to get people or giving out free advantages.
|
On June 17 2013 07:15 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You do have a point, but I would at least prefer some upfront, potentially seeding-bases randomness to the arbitrary act of flipping a coin.
|
On June 17 2013 07:36 Ichabod wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 07:15 jalstar wrote: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. You do have a point, but I would at least prefer some upfront, potentially seeding-bases randomness to the arbitrary act of flipping a coin.
I only meant in theory, of course it's worse for spectating to flip a coin.
|
DAE like extended series...?
|
people gotta chill with this extended series thing lol
|
Just out of curiosity is there another event or sports tournament that does anything like this?
I mean college baseball for example uses double elimination and teams meeting for the second time start the game 0-0, not the score from the previous game. I just don't get this, 2 players meeting again is a fresh series. Tournaments shouldn't have "memories."
|
This makes me sad... I was hoping the extended series wouldn't come back. But I'm still rolling my eyes at people who say "Psh, typical MLG!" as if they hadn't made any progress or evolved at all over the years. They've taken several steps forwards, although this is definitely a step back.
|
Extended series is fucking standard for double elimination in most things, and this doesn't even affect the finals. People need to lrn2read and gtfoverit.
|
On June 17 2013 09:21 -Kaiser- wrote:
Extended series is fucking standard for double elimination in most things, and this doesn't even affect the finals. People need to lrn2read and gtfoverit.
Please point to me anywhere outside of MLG where an "Extended Series" type rule is used in a Double Elimination tournament. I'll be waiting.
|
On June 17 2013 09:22 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 09:21 -Kaiser- wrote:
Extended series is fucking standard for double elimination in most things, and this doesn't even affect the finals. People need to lrn2read and gtfoverit. Please point to me anywhere outside of MLG where an "Extended Series" type rule is used in a Double Elimination tournament. I'll be waiting.
Agreed.. I am really trying to think of an instance and can't. How is this standard??
|
Seems like a lot of people in the thread don't understand Extended Series. The way MLG does Extended Series is NOT standard, not at all. The winners bracket advantage in the finals is standard, to represent the fact that players start with "2 lives" so you cannot be knocked out of the tournament by losing 1 series, only 2. The MLG way of doing things means that if the same players meet AT ANY OTHER POINT IN THE TOURNAMENT then the series resumes from where it ended last and becomes a best of 7, which will at minimum mean the guy who lost the last series is 1 game down, potentially 2.
John Nelson will give you 23159823598 reasons why this system is good. Personally I can't stand it and I don't know any player who thinks its a good idea.
|
Extended series makes sense. A best of 7 is better than two best of 3's at determining the better and more well prepared player. However the player must know that full well in order to be able to prepare for a best of 7 series. Going back and forth on it is pretty strange and confusing.
|
On June 17 2013 09:49 Uncultured wrote:
Extended series makes sense. A best of 7 is better than two best of 3's at determining the better and more well prepared player. However the player must know that full well in order to be able to prepare for a best of 7 series. Going back and forth on it is pretty strange and confusing.
They haven't gone back and forth on it. The rule has never been removed and its not a bo7. Its a bo3 that gets extended to a bo7 starting at the score of the previous match..... that means one player has to potentially win 4 games while the other only has to win 2. This advantage could have been gained from the first match on the first day when 1 player was suffering from jet lag and have no baring on who is actually the better player. Results from 2 days previously should not impact what happens in the grand finals.
As i stated earlier in the thread..... MLG jimmy rigged the championship brackets so that the only a time an extended series could happen was in the semi finals, the finals were then bo7, straight up because the two players in the grand finals came from separate sides of the bracket and could not have met before... so technically it was double elim up until but not including the finals. They did all this, just so they didn't have to remove that stupid rule..... wouldn't it have been easier to just remove it and keep the bracket system they already had? Not for MLG.
before they messed with the brackets so they could have a clean bo7 finals, there was never one epic MLG final because it was nearly always an extended series and usually over in 2 games. Even when it wasn't an extended series if the loser bracket finalist won the first bo3 it would be extended to a bo7 meaning the winners bracket finalist might have to win 4 games instead of 2.... changing the "winners bracket advantage" in to a serious disadvantage.
I think we can all agree that the finals should either be 2 bo3's (if needed) or 1 bo7 (perhaps with a 1 game advantage for the winner bracket finalist, i,.e starting 1-0... which is how many other tourneys do it)
|
Is MLG somehow connected to Microsoft? They show serious misjudgement as to how to do things as Microsoft shows with their new "gaming" console.
Extended series is extremely stupid for several reasons, but the most important one - for a tournament schedule - is the fact that it is a potential FIVE games instead of THREE. Now take some really long 45 minute games and you get a gigantic delay for your schedule. Just do a regular new set of bo3 and be done with it ...
A "double elimination" is a "double elimination" with each match being exactly the same ... no extra rules are needed. That is true for the finals as much as the rest of the bracket.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
I hate the format, but personally I wouldn't want every tournament to have the same format. It's different, so it feels a bit fresh since we've had so many GSL style tournaments lately with WCS. I still won't want because of bad times for Asia, but I'm not upset about extended series even though I don't like it.
|
Why not put Losers from Bracket A into Bracket B's Loser bracket and Bracket B's Loser's into Bracket A's Loser's pool. Sure technically it is possible to have a situation for Extended Series but that should cut back on the possibilities of it happening a bunch, no?
|
I don't get why SC tournaments have these weird rules... why not just go with the standard bracketing system?
|
Double elimination and extend series function completely differently. For example you could have two people meet in the losers bracket and one of them start with a 2-0 advantage so essentially it means the person with an edge needs to lose 3 series in order to be eliminated. This is the part of extend series that I have a problem with and why I want to see it removed.
During the finals when it's winners bracket vs losers it's fine because they still need to lose two series to be eliminated.
|
On June 17 2013 07:30 Furycrab wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2013 07:10 Reborn8u wrote:
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. You do realize that even without extended series, by double elimination, if a player goes into a finals and say they haven't met before, they end up playing 2 BO3 where the guy from Winners only has to win one. You don't get clean BO7 Finals with double elimination. They could if they played it Swiss, but that would need 50-100 more computers at every location. They could do BO7 clean finals with Single Elimination, however the top 8/16 are going to be quite a bit more random. It's not a rule that's out to get people or giving out free advantages.
You do realize that I'm suggesting they do the finals without doing what you are suggesting? I'm saying it should be a double elimination EXCEPT for the grand finals, where a single bo7 is played. How does that make the top 8/16 any more random?
|
Not much we can do about it, MLG and Blizzard have successfully killed off any potential competition for MLG in the NA market so now we just have to deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
