On June 18 2013 11:09 Inimic wrote: Who cares if it affects the final match? We don't want extended series at all...
Speak for yourself. Extended series is great for the game IMO.
ewwww, why do people think this? Every match is its own entity, carrying things over just confuses and poisons that idea. If I were to create a machine that sucked hype out of a building, it would be called extended series.
Extended series generates hype if anything. The losing player comes back and evens the series out? Hype. The losing player comes back and wins the series? Hype. The losing player comes back but loses the series? Hatred? See the next point. The losing player loses before evening out the series? They're obviously the worse player between the two, being no different to hype regardless.
Extended series is a FAIR advantage for the winning player, it's not impossible to comeback against. In the end you either watch MLG and support them or you don't, and we'll see if it's the minority complaining about this or the majority.
On June 18 2013 12:40 Plansix wrote:
On June 18 2013 12:06 geokilla wrote:
On June 18 2013 02:05 onedayclose wrote: Best of 5 Grand Finals? Who does that anymore?!?!?!?
Dreamhack. But Dreamhack has the production to stop all the haters.
When they aren't eliminating players with a coin flip.
Dreamhack is plagued with issues but because they're not an NA corporation they don't get shit on? I can name countless things that Dreamhack could have done better. Leave extended series as it is, it's tried and tested and works. Why don't people complain about finals being a bo5 then a bo3 if the loser-bracket wins the bo5?
No it is not fair for the winning player. He already got an advantage, why does he need two?
Actually the problem with extended series, again, is that it's not enough of an advantage when compared to a standard double elimination format.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself, it's amazing how unfamiliar people seem to be with organizing double elimination tournaments
maybe we should just boycott MLG. don't watch this bullshit tournament, keep watching the good ones (basically all the other major tournaments).
i probably won't watch this one, although that is admittedly mostly because that's the weekend right after my last exam so i don't expect to be at home much
On June 18 2013 11:09 Inimic wrote: Who cares if it affects the final match? We don't want extended series at all...
Speak for yourself. Extended series is great for the game IMO.
ewwww, why do people think this? Every match is its own entity, carrying things over just confuses and poisons that idea. If I were to create a machine that sucked hype out of a building, it would be called extended series.
Extended series generates hype if anything. The losing player comes back and evens the series out? Hype. The losing player comes back and wins the series? Hype. The losing player comes back but loses the series? Hatred? See the next point. The losing player loses before evening out the series? They're obviously the worse player between the two, being no different to hype regardless.
Extended series is a FAIR advantage for the winning player, it's not impossible to comeback against. In the end you either watch MLG and support them or you don't, and we'll see if it's the minority complaining about this or the majority.
On June 18 2013 02:05 onedayclose wrote: Best of 5 Grand Finals? Who does that anymore?!?!?!?
Dreamhack. But Dreamhack has the production to stop all the haters.
When they aren't eliminating players with a coin flip.
Dreamhack is plagued with issues but because they're not an NA corporation they don't get shit on? I can name countless things that Dreamhack could have done better. Leave extended series as it is, it's tried and tested and works. Why don't people complain about finals being a bo5 then a bo3 if the loser-bracket wins the bo5?
That's absurd. I disagree with using extended series but that won't prevent me from watching an in most respect an amazing tournament, it won't show jack shit who's in the majority. Or should we stop watching all tournaments we have issues with? By that logic the majority have no problem with Dreamhack using coin flips to decide draws or have bo3 in the semis because hey, people still watched amirite?
I get not liking it but calling it 'mind bogglingly stupid' is really unfair.
it makes sense, it's a preference thing. It honestly doesn't bother me except that it means less games than I want to watch. which is as many as possible.
but people acting like it's so obviously the wrong choice and whatnot, that's just not true.
I don't understand why they want extended series; MLG is the only one who likes using this rule. It's trivial to implement a bracket where players who have previously played don't meet until grand finals, AND all other tournaments just "reset the bracket" if the original winner loses.
On June 18 2013 18:35 Vari wrote: I get not liking it but calling it 'mind bogglingly stupid' is really unfair.
it makes sense, it's a preference thing. It honestly doesn't bother me except that it means less games than I want to watch. which is as many as possible.
but people acting like it's so obviously the wrong choice and whatnot, that's just not true.
It doesn't add anything. It just complicates everything and prevents comebacks from the lower bracket. There is already an advantage in playing in the winner brackets, you play less games and have more time to prepare for your opponent.
It's useless so adding it is dumb so the ones who decided to put that again are quite dumb. In no other tournaments of any sort you have this stupid rule.
To me MLG operates like Blizzard, being stubborn and refusing to take in consideration general feedbacks, like on a throne where they are untouchable. After that they cry on the community while other tournaments organizers pull their shit together and do what people want, breaking the viewers count or in the case of Blizzard the sight of Riot being the ambassador of esports while they lag behind and still make retarded rules.
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.
Indeed, either way, there is no objective way to measure "fairness". So how about we just give the people what they want, as long as it doesn't end up like the following video:
On June 18 2013 20:22 Mr Mauve wrote: Thought experiment - does anyone not think that extended series would improve the OSL best-of-one RO32?
what? could you elaborate?
Certainly! Match 1: A vs B. A wins. Match 2: C vs D. C wins. Winners' match: A vs C. C wins and goes through. Losers' match: B vs D. D loses and is eliminated.
Final match: A vs B. Winner goes through. Suppose it's B. A and B have now played 2 maps and are 1-1, and B's gone through to the next round. You'd have to have a heart of stone to deny A the opportunity to play a deciding 3rd map... wouldn't you?
On June 18 2013 20:22 Mr Mauve wrote: Thought experiment - does anyone not think that extended series would improve the OSL best-of-one RO32?
what? could you elaborate?
Certainly! Match 1: A vs B. A wins. Match 2: C vs D. C wins. Winners' match: A vs C. C wins and goes through. Losers' match: B vs D. D loses and is eliminated.
Final match: A vs B. Winner goes through. Suppose it's B. A and B have now played 2 maps and are 1-1, and B's gone through to the next round. You'd have to have a heart of stone to deny A the opportunity to play a deciding 3rd map... wouldn't you?
Not really. Its easier if you don't think of it as "player A plays player B" and think of it as "you have to win two games and can't lose two games".
Winning two games at any point puts you through. You can win two straight. Lose one and win two or win one, lose one and win one. But ultimately the goal is very simple: win two games.
Making it an extended series just complicates it and completely destroys the simple principle of "win two games and you're through".
On June 18 2013 20:22 Mr Mauve wrote: Thought experiment - does anyone not think that extended series would improve the OSL best-of-one RO32?
what? could you elaborate?
Certainly! Match 1: A vs B. A wins. Match 2: C vs D. C wins. Winners' match: A vs C. C wins and goes through. Losers' match: B vs D. D loses and is eliminated.
Final match: A vs B. Winner goes through. Suppose it's B. A and B have now played 2 maps and are 1-1, and B's gone through to the next round. You'd have to have a heart of stone to deny A the opportunity to play a deciding 3rd map... wouldn't you?
Not really. Its easier if you don't think of it as "player A plays player B" and think of it as "you have to win two games and can't lose two games".
Winning two games at any point puts you through. You can win two straight. Lose one and win two or win one, lose one and win one. But ultimately the goal is very simple: win two games.
Making it an extended series just complicates it and completely destroys the simple principle of "win two games and you're through".
My view remains that the principle of "win more games of Starcraft than your competitor" is more simple than yours.
Put it this way: if a 5-year old asks you "why did player B go through?" and you bust out your explanation, I think 5-year-old says "but that's not FAIR!". I get to say "he won 2 times and the other player won 1 time, remember?".
But this argument has been done to death elsewhere so I withdraw at this point. I just think that BO1 Swiss rounds, OSL-style, might be a useful entry drug for people to begin to accept extended series.
I really thought I had seen the last of this shit. It honestly spoils finals for me. I don't get why one guy has to win twice, it just makes the finals stupid.
My biggest problem with the extended series is that the circumstances of the second match could be drastically different than the first one, all the way down to the mental/physical state of the players (e.g. player B felt nervous or otherwise unwell in the first match, but is better now), so treating the new match simply as an extension of the past is extremely unfair. Losing the first match was already punished with a longer route through the losers bracket, that should be enough.
On June 18 2013 21:21 Mr Mauve wrote:My view remains that the principle of "win more games of Starcraft than your competitor" is more simple than yours.
Problem here is you're still thinking of it as a "Player A vs Player B" scenario.
Its not. Its a group stage. Its not "win more games of Starcraft than your competitor". Its "win more games of Starcraft than your competitors".
MLG: Because when the community already hates you for bungling their WCS AM, you might as well go ahead and bring back an outdated, misapplied rule that they had lobbied against for two years.
I swear to all that is holy in this world, it's like Sundance comes up with shit to piss us off to see how much he can get away with before we stop watching his events.