I thought MLG realized that Extended Series don't work.. Why are they back? I wish it was MLG that disappeared and not IPL. NASL should be given the rights to do WCS America instead of MLG. Mod Edit: Please read the full set of rules. The bracket is divided into two halves, each operating as it's own double-elimination bracket. The winners of each bracket will play in the finals, ensuring that the two finalists will not have previously met in the tournament. So yes, extended series is back but will not affect the final match.
Why do they keep adding this shit despite widespread public backlash and hatred of the system? Should honestly start protesting this shit through nonparticipation to show MLG that we're tired of something flawed.
I'm actually surprised how far MLG is willing to take this. Ever since they got exclusivity and monopoly power in NA, they've been pissing off the community and screwing things up. I think at this point it may even be MLG deliberately trying to see how far they can go against the community without financial backlash. A business experiment if you will. :p
Maybe if they implement this, and see that their bottom line doesn't get hurt too bad (stream viewership is roughly steady, attendance is roughly steady), they might even go further and reintroduce the beloved PPV system for all events
Who knows, maybe if Sundance is really good at negotiating, he could convince Blizzard to allow him to make WCS AM PPV as well! How splendid!
Has there ever been a starcraft fan or player who told MLG this was a good idea? It doesn't make any sense. They do whatever else they can to get viewers and make money, but they stick with extended series against all logic like it's some sort of weird religious obligation.
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.
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.
On June 17 2013 05:21 SnipedSoul wrote: Why is MLG so gung-ho on this? Imagine how bad GSL Ro32 and Ro16 would be if they used extended series.
It isn't even remotely comparable, they use a COMPLETELY different tournament format, one that would be absolutely impossible with an open bracket involved.
Extended series is a good idea. I don't know how anyone can dislike it. If you have a lower bracket, you need to reward the players that win. If you complain about the advantage, maybe it should just be like GSL where your tournament is over if you lose one series?
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.
On June 17 2013 05:22 arterian wrote: Extended series is a good idea. I don't know how anyone can dislike it. If you have a lower bracket, you need to reward the players that win. If you complain about the advantage, maybe it should just be like GSL where your tournament is over if you lose one series?
The problem is that extended series are TOO LITTLE advantage. WTF?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Then you have single elimination, not just some random pile of trash that you call double elimination.
Also I'm not sure what you mean, no one's talking about making later stages single elimination, that's really stupid.
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.
Then you have single elimination, not just some random pile of trash that you call double elimination.
I personally would be fine with that, but the vast majority of viewers don't want a single elimination super tournament. When GoM did it people hated it, and I don't think it's necessarily fair to the players either.
Double elimination is a pretty bad format, extended series or no. I'm enjoying the Dreamhack format right now but I'd like to see a tournament try out Swiss.
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.
Well then you should be making an argument for just changing MLG to a single elimination tournament. I'd personally be ok with that, but as long as MLG continues to do double elimination the extended series wont go anywhere, I don't understand how other people don't understand that.
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.
Then you have single elimination, not just some random pile of trash that you call double elimination.
I personally would be fine with that, but the vast majority of viewers don't want a single elimination super tournament. When GoM did it people hated it, and I don't think it's necessarily fair to the players either.
I'm not sure if you're just reading or what? The problem with double elimination and extended series is that it makes it so that it matters if it was just -that specific player- you played against to get dropped down. If it wasn't, it's normal double elimination.
If they had "extended series" against everyone no matter if they played against each other before, using the results of the game where they dropped down, I'd have no issues, I think that'd be fine.
I prefer single elimination brackets a bit more than -any- double elim. Losing (and winning) actually feels like something then. As for the extended series, I think we all know that it's silly. I wouldn't even argue that extended series makes it more fair. If someone cannot win another series versus the player after having beat them once, then clearly their win earlier on didn't mean that much. Also since anyone else would have to play the standard series versus them, it's stupid.
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.
Then you have single elimination, not just some random pile of trash that you call double elimination.
Also I'm not sure what you mean, no one's talking about making later stages single elimination, that's really stupid.
People that want double elimination in the lower bracket but hate having the extended series in the championship bracket are essentially asking for that. Which I agree IS a stupid idea.
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.
well what about the integrity of the competition? i swear mlg never cares if its a fair tournament.
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.
Then you have single elimination, not just some random pile of trash that you call double elimination.
I personally would be fine with that, but the vast majority of viewers don't want a single elimination super tournament. When GoM did it people hated it, and I don't think it's necessarily fair to the players either.
I'm not sure if you're just reading or what? The problem with double elimination and extended series is that it makes it so that it matters if it was just -that specific player- you played against to get dropped down. If it wasn't, it's normal double elimination.
If they had "extended series" against everyone no matter if they played against each other before, using the results of the game where they dropped down, I'd have no issues, I think that'd be fine.
I actually get what you're complaining about, but that's not what a majority of people complain about when it comes to the extended series from what I've experienced over the years.
People complain about the advantage it gives the player in the upper bracket, especially when it's a fan favorite that loses in the Winner's semis. Its that scenario that I see the majority of extended series hate come out, but that's just been my experience with it.
Personally, my gripe with the extended series is similar to yours. I feel like if you're going to do a single elimination tournament do it single elim, if you're going to do a double elimination tournament, do it double elim with the double series finals. That's how I'd do it.
People hated it at IPL4 when aLive won the second series when he lost the first and hate watching their favorite player get knocked out of a tournament to cheese builds and don't get a second chance, I see people ALWAYS complaining regardless of what format tournaments use.
Why the extended series is any different in that regard is what confuses me.
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.
I'm a viewer and I don't want double elimination, not to mention extended series which has no place in esports. Also, two series finals is the only way to do true double elimination.
Hmm reading everything it's not even as bad as I thought, just really confusing. This formation also is much better than it used to be.
The adjustment I'd make would be such that you don't play an initial Bo3 if you haven't played each other yet, but instead will just use the Bo3 result in the game that dropped the losers' bracket player to the losers' bracket.
For example, Flash plays Jaedong in the winners' bracket and loses 2-1 then plays against Innovation in the semis. It should just pick off from that 2-1 and be a Bo7, instead of them first playing a Bo3 among each other and then making that into a Bo7. This is exactly what would happen if the players had played against each other earlier.
As it is right now, it slightly favors the player coming into semis from the losers' bracket if they haven't played against each other earlier.
edit: changed to slightly because it's not that much
No actually I'd just change it the other way around and make it how it is when the players haven't played against each other no matter what.
I love the MOD edit in the Original Post. How good is a fucking rule if they do everything in their power to make sure that rule doesn't get applied in the Grand Finals Match because it ruins it? So the rule has the potential of completely fucking over the Grand Finals and instead of removing the rule which 99% of organizations would do, MLG decides to continue head strong and create a new format and new rules to make sure the rule they alone created doesn't fuck over the Grand Finals.
Unbelievable man. UN-fucking-believable. Does this thing get WCS points? Because it shouldn't.
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.
Speaking mostly for myself as a viewer, I'd rather have the option where two players can't go equal on games but because of the order of the games one player is declared the victor.
Type of thing where you could end up with...
"Winner of MLG summerwhatever 2013, X, and in second place with a record of 4-4 over the weekend over the winner, Y!"
I fail to see what is the problem with double elimination brackets? Extended series, couple wins advantage in finals, whatever. It looks much more reasonable to me than meaningless matches in group stages on Dreamhack. GSL have perfectly fair and simple group stage, it's like reinventing the wheel and making it square.
Gargh, stop mucking with the format and various other things.
I do enjoy MLGs but more for the atmosphere there than a lot of other factors. I thought they had it right with the two streams with separate matches and my beloved first-person streams, so glorious.
Since then I've found myself not enjoying a lot of aspects of the production that they keep tweaking. Picture in picture is a nice addition, but having a triple monitor setup watching MC vs Stephano from the casters view in the middle, and MC and Stephano's FP on either side was amazing. Wish they'd bring that back
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.
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 05:20 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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 07:11 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 07:11 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.
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 09:21 -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.
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?
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 07:10 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.
Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
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.
On June 17 2013 13:10 ElBlanco wrote: 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.
If they do a MLG Ye Olde Map Tournament with WoL maps in HoTS they will win me over
There is no reason for having an extended series, because any match should be treated the same as any other match ... and thus "in a vacuum" and without the results from any other match interfering in any way.
On June 17 2013 5:26 Plexa wrote: 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.
That is not true, because IF someone is a better player he would be able to win another bo3 as well, but the extended series might force him to play FIVE games instead of THREE and thus tire him out more than other equally good players in the tournament, which gives the others a clear advantage. That is a clear disadvantage of players who are forced to play more games.
Extended series is terrible for viewers too, because it could screw up the tournament and streaming schedule a lot. There is nothing worse than long breaks in something like a weekend tournament coverage; this weeks DH on day 1 and many $100 tournaments with only enthusiasts casting it clearly show that.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
On June 17 2013 14:12 Rabiator wrote: There is no reason for having an extended series, because any match should be treated the same as any other match ... and thus "in a vacuum" and without the results from any other match interfering in any way.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: 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.
That is not true, because IF someone is a better player he would be able to win another bo3 as well, but the extended series might force him to play FIVE games instead of THREE and thus tire him out more than other equally good players in the tournament, which gives the others a clear advantage. That is a clear disadvantage of players who are forced to play more games.
Extended series is terrible for viewers too, because it could screw up the tournament and streaming schedule a lot. There is nothing worse than long breaks in something like a weekend tournament coverage; this weeks DH on day 1 and many $100 tournaments with only enthusiasts casting it clearly show that.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
The vocal majority do care. Ask all the players. Ask the people in attendance. Not just these forums or reddit. Everyone I know hates the idea. I don't care for excuses and you know what. There have been countless debates on this and I don't see any reason to go over them again. ~_~ I'll just say this. More suspense is a good thing and with this rule it's very rare that you'll find any of it.
On June 17 2013 15:20 Kluey wrote: Extended series is the same as points in a league. They stick with you and you're punished for every loss. There is nothing wrong with it.
Hardly comparable as this is a playoff tournament, not a league.
On June 17 2013 15:20 Kluey wrote: Extended series is the same as points in a league. They stick with you and you're punished for every loss. There is nothing wrong with it.
Eh no, that would be like if the regular season results in the nhl transferred over to the playoffs. The seeding is an advantage in itself, you don't need any extended shit. And in MLG's format you have an advantage of only having to win one bo3 if you face off against someone from the losers bracket, regardless if you have met that player before or not. The extended series just makes sure the second serie is basically over before it starts in a lot of cases.
On June 17 2013 14:12 Rabiator wrote: There is no reason for having an extended series, because any match should be treated the same as any other match ... and thus "in a vacuum" and without the results from any other match interfering in any way.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: 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.
That is not true, because IF someone is a better player he would be able to win another bo3 as well, but the extended series might force him to play FIVE games instead of THREE and thus tire him out more than other equally good players in the tournament, which gives the others a clear advantage. That is a clear disadvantage of players who are forced to play more games.
Extended series is terrible for viewers too, because it could screw up the tournament and streaming schedule a lot. There is nothing worse than long breaks in something like a weekend tournament coverage; this weeks DH on day 1 and many $100 tournaments with only enthusiasts casting it clearly show that.
You meant to quote Plexa man not me lol.
I apologize ... and yes, that quote is from Plexa. I get annoyed when people dont quote correctly and now its time to be annoyed by myself. *damn*
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
Explain to me why the extended series is FAIR.
Player A plays against player B and one of them goes down to the losers bracket. The loser has "paid his price" by losing one of his two lives. Why should he be penalized later on if they meet again, because both of them are losers?
Its like a criminal who has served his sentence in prison and who commits another crime later on ... he only gets tried for the new crime instead of all his crimes, because he paid the penalty already.
I dont understand why everybody is/are crying? Its more fair for the players, if you beat him before - you have the advantage in the next match, its normal, stop crying. You just came here to complain about everything, which is stupid thing to do .
From a viewer standpoint they appear equal to me (extended and non-extended series), but I feel like I'm different than the majority on most viewership issues like this one.
From a competitive standpoint, however, the divide seems to be whether or not someone thinks it's fair for the player who comes through the loser's bracket to have to win an extended series or not. I personally think that it's a fair reward for the player who hasn't lost to have that back-up series once the double elimination part is over and they lose 2-1 or 2-0. To me, the penalty for the other player who has already lost, was going through the Loser's bracket, and just because one player gets penalized and the other is rewarded doesn't mean, to me, that the one player is being punished twice. That's my position on it, and I completely understand how someone could feel otherwise.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
Explain to me why the extended series is FAIR.
Player A plays against player B and one of them goes down to the losers bracket. The loser has "paid his price" by losing one of his two lives. Why should he be penalized later on if they meet again, because both of them are losers?
Its like a criminal who has served his sentence in prison and who commits another crime later on ... he only gets tried for the new crime instead of all his crimes, because he paid the penalty already.
No. Extended series allow you to make a difference between 2-1 and 2-0 in a Bo3. As long as it doesn't affect the finals, I'm okay with it.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
Explain to me why the extended series is FAIR.
Player A plays against player B and one of them goes down to the losers bracket. The loser has "paid his price" by losing one of his two lives. Why should he be penalized later on if they meet again, because both of them are losers?
Its like a criminal who has served his sentence in prison and who commits another crime later on ... he only gets tried for the new crime instead of all his crimes, because he paid the penalty already.
No. Extended series allow you to make a difference between 2-1 and 2-0 in a Bo3. As long as it doesn't affect the finals, I'm okay with it.
So a criminal in your world will be sentenced for all his crimes from the past ... no matter if he already served time in prison?
The way MLG works with the group stage and the bracket stage you have more than just "a match" to to consider, because the ones who are pushed down from group stage earlier will have to play more games ... a lot more. Adding an extended series is yet another penalty on top of this. It is in no way fair.
Imagine what would happen if the GSL had extended series. There are several group stages where people go on in the tournament after losing to another. Isnt the GSL (WCS) totally "unfair" since they have no extended series? Why are people not protesting that?
I think that a much bigger issue than the extended series with players who have played against each other before.... Is the extended series if they haven't.
The only advantage for the winners' bracket player is that they can cut the Bo7 short if they win 2 out of the first 3 games. If not, it's just a straight Bo7 with no advantages, with both players needing 4 won games in total to win. That's just wrong. At least with extended series between players who played earlier the player coming from the losers' bracket always needs to win more games.
Actually I never understood why extended series was a necessary rule. Not to be confused with the single bracket double elim finals where the loser bracket guy has to beat the winner bracket guy twice to win. This rule is fair and normal.
On June 17 2013 18:49 Irrational_Animal wrote: Well the whole extended series stuff just creates more drama (thus more attention towards MLG) for them.
The drama is created OUTSIDE the tournament though ... and you know that it takes ages to build a good reputation while it takes only seconds to ruin it. MLG has had some publicity missteps - like the many screw-ups during the WCS qualifier - only recently and this just adds to their reputation of not really knowing what they should do.
On June 17 2013 18:55 Shikyo wrote: I think that a much bigger issue than the extended series with players who have played against each other before.... Is the extended series if they haven't.
The only advantage for the winners' bracket player is that they can cut the Bo7 short if they win 2 out of the first 3 games. If not, it's just a straight Bo7 with no advantages, with both players needing 4 won games in total to win. That's just wrong. At least with extended series between players who played earlier the player coming from the losers' bracket always needs to win more games.
This makes no sense. There is no extended series for 2 players that haven't played yet.
On June 17 2013 16:24 habeck wrote: I dont understand why everybody is/are crying? Its more fair for the players, if you beat him before - you have the advantage in the next match, its normal, stop crying. You just came here to complain about everything, which is stupid thing to do .
but if you go to the same position in the tourney by definition that means you have performed equally well, i may have put you down the loser bracket, but that means there must be someone out there who put me down.
to put it another way, if i fall down the loser bracket and im watching the match to see who progresses in the loser bracket to face me, why does who i face decide the format we play in? we have all earned the right to be in that exact same match, why do i have a 50% chance at that point of having a free 2-1 head start?
or to use real sport examples, imagine the champions league or world series finals. if the teams have played before in the regular season, does 1 get a free advantage in the final? no.
On June 17 2013 16:24 habeck wrote: I dont understand why everybody is/are crying? Its more fair for the players, if you beat him before - you have the advantage in the next match, its normal, stop crying. You just came here to complain about everything, which is stupid thing to do .
but if you go to the same position in the tourney by definition that means you have performed equally well, i may have put you down the loser bracket, but that means there must be someone out there who put me down.
to put it another way, if i fall down the loser bracket and im watching the match to see who progresses in the loser bracket to face me, why does who i face decide the format we play in? we have all earned the right to be in that exact same match, why do i have a 50% chance at that point of having a free 2-1 head start?
or to use real sport examples, imagine the champions league or world series finals. if the teams have played before in the regular season, does 1 get a free advantage in the final? no.
And if they want to provide an advantage let the person who won previously pick first map or something.
But like you said no other tournament does this. Have you ever seen a soccer match where a team started up 1-0?
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
Explain to me why the extended series is FAIR.
Player A plays against player B and one of them goes down to the losers bracket. The loser has "paid his price" by losing one of his two lives. Why should he be penalized later on if they meet again, because both of them are losers?
Its like a criminal who has served his sentence in prison and who commits another crime later on ... he only gets tried for the new crime instead of all his crimes, because he paid the penalty already.
No. Extended series allow you to make a difference between 2-1 and 2-0 in a Bo3. As long as it doesn't affect the finals, I'm okay with it.
So a criminal in your world will be sentenced for all his crimes from the past ... no matter if he already served time in prison?
I understand your point but this is a truly terrible example. In almost every country in the world, repeat offenders get more severe punishments.
On June 17 2013 16:24 habeck wrote: I dont understand why everybody is/are crying? Its more fair for the players, if you beat him before - you have the advantage in the next match, its normal, stop crying. You just came here to complain about everything, which is stupid thing to do .
but if you go to the same position in the tourney by definition that means you have performed equally well, i may have put you down the loser bracket, but that means there must be someone out there who put me down.
to put it another way, if i fall down the loser bracket and im watching the match to see who progresses in the loser bracket to face me, why does who i face decide the format we play in? we have all earned the right to be in that exact same match, why do i have a 50% chance at that point of having a free 2-1 head start?
or to use real sport examples, imagine the champions league or world series finals. if the teams have played before in the regular season, does 1 get a free advantage in the final? no.
Well there is a equal chance that a player could have a stupid easy losers bracket and get back into the winners bracket. There is a scenario where the winner has to play 5-6 professional players, while the loser gets a few low masters players a pro or two. Then the player who smashed through the winners bracket gets to play the player they already knocked out, who had to play only the losing players from the bracket.
I long as it doesn't affect the finals, I am ok with extended series. It doesn't work great with all professional brackets, but when it is this mix of pros and amateur players, I am fine with it.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
Explain to me why the extended series is FAIR.
Player A plays against player B and one of them goes down to the losers bracket. The loser has "paid his price" by losing one of his two lives. Why should he be penalized later on if they meet again, because both of them are losers?
Its like a criminal who has served his sentence in prison and who commits another crime later on ... he only gets tried for the new crime instead of all his crimes, because he paid the penalty already.
No. Extended series allow you to make a difference between 2-1 and 2-0 in a Bo3. As long as it doesn't affect the finals, I'm okay with it.
So a criminal in your world will be sentenced for all his crimes from the past ... no matter if he already served time in prison?
I understand your point but this is a truly terrible example. In almost every country in the world, repeat offenders get more severe punishments.
Massachusetts has it written into the law that drunk drivers MUST get a great punishment each time that they are convicted of the offense. There is no judicial discretion on the matter, it has to happen.
On June 17 2013 18:55 Shikyo wrote: The only advantage for the winners' bracket player is that they can cut the Bo7 short if they win 2 out of the first 3 games. If not, it's just a straight Bo7 with no advantages, with both players needing 4 won games in total to win. That's just wrong. At least with extended series between players who played earlier the player coming from the losers' bracket always needs to win more games.
This is what people seem to really not understand about double elimination brackets in relation to BoX games/matches; the loser's bracket winner had to go to the loser's bracket and win even more matches to even reach the final. That is the disadvantage the upper winner didn't have to go through. They don't get to play less opponents and get an advantage in the final, that's ridiculous.
All that said, extended series is bad and MLG is just being MLG.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
Explain to me why the extended series is FAIR.
Player A plays against player B and one of them goes down to the losers bracket. The loser has "paid his price" by losing one of his two lives. Why should he be penalized later on if they meet again, because both of them are losers?
Its like a criminal who has served his sentence in prison and who commits another crime later on ... he only gets tried for the new crime instead of all his crimes, because he paid the penalty already.
No. Extended series allow you to make a difference between 2-1 and 2-0 in a Bo3. As long as it doesn't affect the finals, I'm okay with it.
So a criminal in your world will be sentenced for all his crimes from the past ... no matter if he already served time in prison?
I understand your point but this is a truly terrible example. In almost every country in the world, repeat offenders get more severe punishments.
TL: home of the terribad analogies. As for CoR the word anti-climatic seems to escape you.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
Explain to me why the extended series is FAIR.
Player A plays against player B and one of them goes down to the losers bracket. The loser has "paid his price" by losing one of his two lives. Why should he be penalized later on if they meet again, because both of them are losers?
Its like a criminal who has served his sentence in prison and who commits another crime later on ... he only gets tried for the new crime instead of all his crimes, because he paid the penalty already.
No. Extended series allow you to make a difference between 2-1 and 2-0 in a Bo3. As long as it doesn't affect the finals, I'm okay with it.
So a criminal in your world will be sentenced for all his crimes from the past ... no matter if he already served time in prison?
I understand your point but this is a truly terrible example. In almost every country in the world, repeat offenders get more severe punishments.
I would say they are let off easy the first time since the actual severity of the punishment is up to the judge, but that isnt really the point. In every country you are only charged with the current offense instead of all the things you have done wrong before serving your time in prison. The point is: You got dropped to losers bracket - which is the punishment - and should have a clean slate against everyone you have to play.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
On June 17 2013 05:26 Plexa wrote:
On June 17 2013 05:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
On June 17 2013 05:22 Plexa wrote: [quote] 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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
Explain to me why the extended series is FAIR.
Player A plays against player B and one of them goes down to the losers bracket. The loser has "paid his price" by losing one of his two lives. Why should he be penalized later on if they meet again, because both of them are losers?
Its like a criminal who has served his sentence in prison and who commits another crime later on ... he only gets tried for the new crime instead of all his crimes, because he paid the penalty already.
No. Extended series allow you to make a difference between 2-1 and 2-0 in a Bo3. As long as it doesn't affect the finals, I'm okay with it.
So a criminal in your world will be sentenced for all his crimes from the past ... no matter if he already served time in prison?
I understand your point but this is a truly terrible example. In almost every country in the world, repeat offenders get more severe punishments.
Massachusetts has it written into the law that drunk drivers MUST get a great punishment each time that they are convicted of the offense. There is no judicial discretion on the matter, it has to happen.
Is the punishment increased for each time they are convicted OR is it the same harsh punishment each time?
On June 17 2013 18:55 Shikyo wrote: The only advantage for the winners' bracket player is that they can cut the Bo7 short if they win 2 out of the first 3 games. If not, it's just a straight Bo7 with no advantages, with both players needing 4 won games in total to win. That's just wrong. At least with extended series between players who played earlier the player coming from the losers' bracket always needs to win more games.
This is what people seem to really not understand about double elimination brackets in relation to BoX games/matches; the loser's bracket winner had to go to the loser's bracket and win even more matches to even reach the final. That is the disadvantage the upper winner didn't have to go through. They don't get to play less opponents and get an advantage in the final, that's ridiculous.
All that said, extended series is bad and MLG is just being MLG.
If you lose in the second to last round you have to win just as many matches as the guy from the upper bracket.
Extended series is not the best option for the viewing experience. Especially when there was an earlier dominate performance making the viewer think the series is almost over at the finals. With that said it isn't unfair. You did have the chance to win earlier you simply didn't. You also got to play losers while the guy who beat you was still playing winners. I really don't see the issue with it for people except that it can and usually does make the finals lackluster.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
On June 17 2013 05:26 Plexa wrote:
On June 17 2013 05:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
On June 17 2013 05:22 Plexa wrote: [quote] 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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
Explain to me why the extended series is FAIR.
Player A plays against player B and one of them goes down to the losers bracket. The loser has "paid his price" by losing one of his two lives. Why should he be penalized later on if they meet again, because both of them are losers?
Its like a criminal who has served his sentence in prison and who commits another crime later on ... he only gets tried for the new crime instead of all his crimes, because he paid the penalty already.
No. Extended series allow you to make a difference between 2-1 and 2-0 in a Bo3. As long as it doesn't affect the finals, I'm okay with it.
So a criminal in your world will be sentenced for all his crimes from the past ... no matter if he already served time in prison?
I understand your point but this is a truly terrible example. In almost every country in the world, repeat offenders get more severe punishments.
I would say they are let off easy the first time since the actual severity of the punishment is up to the judge, but that isnt really the point. In every country you are only charged with the current offense instead of all the things you have done wrong before serving your time in prison. The point is: You got dropped to losers bracket - which is the punishment - and should have a clean slate against everyone you have to play.
On June 17 2013 13:36 StarStruck wrote: Leave it to the good Ol' MLG Commissioner to keep this crap up boys. If they were so torn about deadlines on the production perhaps they should do more bo1 :3
On June 17 2013 05:26 Plexa wrote:
On June 17 2013 05:24 Vindicare605 wrote: [quote]
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.
The pinnacle of anti-climatic finishes. Indeed.
People just like to jump on the bandwagon of "Extended series is bad because it knocked out my favorite player unfairly!!!". I think the vocal majority of people don't care what happens as long as the player their rooting for gets past. Extended series if a fair advantage, I don't know how anyone else can complain otherwise.
Explain to me why the extended series is FAIR.
Player A plays against player B and one of them goes down to the losers bracket. The loser has "paid his price" by losing one of his two lives. Why should he be penalized later on if they meet again, because both of them are losers?
Its like a criminal who has served his sentence in prison and who commits another crime later on ... he only gets tried for the new crime instead of all his crimes, because he paid the penalty already.
No. Extended series allow you to make a difference between 2-1 and 2-0 in a Bo3. As long as it doesn't affect the finals, I'm okay with it.
So a criminal in your world will be sentenced for all his crimes from the past ... no matter if he already served time in prison?
I understand your point but this is a truly terrible example. In almost every country in the world, repeat offenders get more severe punishments.
Massachusetts has it written into the law that drunk drivers MUST get a great punishment each time that they are convicted of the offense. There is no judicial discretion on the matter, it has to happen.
Is the punishment increased for each time they are convicted OR is it the same harsh punishment each time?
It increases each time you are convicted, in both fines and length of licence suspension. After three times, you go to jail. There is no discretion is allowed.(excluding previous convictions going unnoticed by the court, which happens if someone a split criminal record) It is there to avoid issues where repeat offenders keep getting released until they finally kill someone, which is why the minimums were put in place.
On June 17 2013 22:20 bananafone wrote: Why do they insist on double elimination? If the format isn't good enough for the finals why is it good enough for the rest of the tournament?
This format, while better than true double elimination, is just stupid.
You want someone to fly from Korea to play when they are risking be eliminated after a single best of three? Double elimination exists to make sure the better players have the best change of making it to groups. Its not a perfect system, but no system is.
Yay, the most hated rule in e-sports returns with a vengeance! Terrible decision by MLG (as if this needed to be said). Each match in a tournament should be treated like a unique event. I don't understand how any organization can be so arrogant so as to believe that a rule that is used no where else in the entire world for any sport is somehow the best way to do things at their events. Its as if they believe they are the only people on the planet doing things fairly. So stupid.
On June 17 2013 16:24 habeck wrote: I dont understand why everybody is/are crying? Its more fair for the players, if you beat him before - you have the advantage in the next match, its normal, stop crying. You just came here to complain about everything, which is stupid thing to do .
You already got an advantage, the fact you need to play less matches to win to get higher ranked in the tournament. Why do you need 2 advantages out of nowhere? The player that lost already got a disadvantage of needing to play more matches to get back to player 1 and you want to give him another one? This makes no sense whatsoever. Nowhere else is it used and that is for a dam good reason.
On June 17 2013 22:20 bananafone wrote: Why do they insist on double elimination? If the format isn't good enough for the finals why is it good enough for the rest of the tournament?
This format, while better than true double elimination, is just stupid.
You want someone to fly from Korea to play when they are risking be eliminated after a single best of three? Double elimination exists to make sure the better players have the best change of making it to groups. Its not a perfect system, but no system is.
group stage into single elimination like OSL/GSL/Dreamhack/every tournament on the planet. Why is this so hard?
On June 17 2013 22:20 bananafone wrote: Why do they insist on double elimination? If the format isn't good enough for the finals why is it good enough for the rest of the tournament?
This format, while better than true double elimination, is just stupid.
You want someone to fly from Korea to play when they are risking be eliminated after a single best of three? Double elimination exists to make sure the better players have the best change of making it to groups. Its not a perfect system, but no system is.
group stage into single elimination like OSL/GSL/Dreamhack/every tournament on the planet. Why is this so hard?
Because none of those listed run an onsite open bracket? Dreamhack has an online qualifier and only has 64 players at the time of the event. And Dreamhack runs groups, so players get to play several BO3 before being knocked out.
GSL is not a weekend event and has a complex qualification proess. Same with OSL.
On June 17 2013 22:20 bananafone wrote: Why do they insist on double elimination? If the format isn't good enough for the finals why is it good enough for the rest of the tournament?
This format, while better than true double elimination, is just stupid.
You want someone to fly from Korea to play when they are risking be eliminated after a single best of three? Double elimination exists to make sure the better players have the best change of making it to groups. Its not a perfect system, but no system is.
Yeah i do. Those players don't fly over here to decide who is the best. They fly over here to win the prizemoney and they will do so with 6pools, 2raxes and cannon rushes if they need to. They don't give a rats ass who is the best player. The prizemoney is directly related to how well the audience is entertained, thus the most entertaining format should be chosen.
Also as you said yourself, no system is perfect and even if triple elimination was used you're still without any guarantee the best player wins. Alas, choose the most entertaining format.
On June 17 2013 22:20 bananafone wrote: Why do they insist on double elimination? If the format isn't good enough for the finals why is it good enough for the rest of the tournament?
This format, while better than true double elimination, is just stupid.
You want someone to fly from Korea to play when they are risking be eliminated after a single best of three? Double elimination exists to make sure the better players have the best change of making it to groups. Its not a perfect system, but no system is.
group stage into single elimination like OSL/GSL/Dreamhack/every tournament on the planet. Why is this so hard?
group stage is even worse in an OPEN tournament. koreans aren't flocking to anaheim for a mere $10k anyway.
On June 17 2013 22:20 bananafone wrote: Why do they insist on double elimination? If the format isn't good enough for the finals why is it good enough for the rest of the tournament?
This format, while better than true double elimination, is just stupid.
You want someone to fly from Korea to play when they are risking be eliminated after a single best of three? Double elimination exists to make sure the better players have the best change of making it to groups. Its not a perfect system, but no system is.
Fine then, have a standard double elim, like most tournaments.
This isn't a double elim system, extended series is something that I've only ever seen at MLG, and isn't any more "fair" then double elim, but worse for viewers.
I don't understand this decision from MLG, its incredibly idiotic. The player coming from the lower bracket already is at a disadvantage because he needs to play more matches to win and is exposing himself wilts doing so. The player in the winner's bracket gets to rest and has a chance to study his opponent's builds, tendencies, styles etc.
I think that's already enough of an advantage, no need to also rub salt in the wound by having the player from the loser's bracket go trough two BO5s.
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.
sigh so annoying that they want to make sure the final doesn't end anticlimactic. I like double elimination with all its faults. Still an interesting approach, they should just cut the extended series out of it though and it would work just as fine. In the end nothing guarantees an epic final, especially when most players excel at one or two matchups only. I am quiet sure though they will handpick the 2 brackets nicely though, so the favorites will be well spread and not be on only one side heh.
So rule 4, normal extended series, if you meet a second time anywhere you pick up from where you left off to a Bo7. I can live with this one, doesn't seem too bad.
But Rule 5...wtf. So instead of just using two separate Bo3, or just make it a Bo5 like the finals, you give the winner's bracket player an advantage in the first bo3 by saying they only need to win 2 games to advance, but then turning around and say 'but if you lose the first 2/3, you have to then win 3/4 or 4/5', leaving them at a disadvantage.
Semifinal looks like this assuming both players haven't met previously "Series 1": Winner (from WB)- win 2/3 or 66% to advance Loser (from LB)- win 2/3 or 66% to continue "Extended Series" - Winner (from WB)- win 3/4 or 75% to advance (if 2-1) OR win 4/5 or 80% to advance (if 2-0) Loser (from LB)- win 2/4 (if 2-1) or 50% to advance OR win 2/5 or 40% to advance (if 2-0)
With 2 bo3 "Series 1": Winner (from WB)- win 2/3 or 66% to advance Loser (from LB)- win 2/3 or 66% to continue "Series 2": Winner (from WB)- win 2/3 or 66% to advance Loser (from LB)- win 2/3 or 66% to advance
With a bo5 "Series 1": Winner (from WB)- win 3/5 or 60% to advance Loser (from LB)- win 3/5 or 60% to continue
I can see why b05 doesn't work for the semi, as you're giving the WB player 1 less loss to be knocked out while giving the LB player 1 extra loss. But between 2 bo3 and what they currently have cooked up...just some strange eggs working at MLG.
I'd be interested to see the numbers for and against this in poll format.
People are throwing out 'nobody likes this', which is patently not the case but I would wager that the majority will fall on the side of 'nay' on this one.
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?
I don't understand why people create threads on this in the year 2013. We realized in flipping 2011 that the community was split 50/50 on this and that any further discussion was pointless. We debated this for like two full months of nothing but extended series. There are two ENTIRE State of the Game episodes on extended series, both featuring MLG employees.
People raised good points on both sides. The most notable I recall was Nony arguing that "if the goal of the tournament is to have the highest chance possible to award victory to the best player, then extended series must be implemented."
However, people raised the counterpoints that it was bad for spectators, and the majority of the people against extended series were against it because of how it could ruin the Grand Finals for spectators.
Since that problem doesn't exist here, the whine is irrelevant.
On June 18 2013 12:54 Wombat_NI wrote: I'd be interested to see the numbers for and against this in poll format.
People are throwing out 'nobody likes this', which is patently not the case but I would wager that the majority will fall on the side of 'nay' on this one.
We've done this a number of times man and the poll results are always the same on this website/reddit/etc. Ask the players themselves and most of them argue against it vehemently. It's nice to see Mr. Nelson has brainwashed quite a number of folks and we're starting to see that in the comments section. In either case you won't get the Commissioner to budge because of his thick skull. At least they cannot pull this crap on the WCS so we'll just have to let them eat their cake until they come up with the next bogus ideal to be innovative when it comes to time constraints. What kind of stories will they come up next! Only time will tell! Stay tuned in. Same time; same Bat channel friend! In either case, I'm tired of giving these guys free publicity. No more!
Some people don't get how it creates anti-hype and they never will. No point arguing with them because you'll just keep going in circles like good ol' Daytona 500. BOOGITY BOOGITY BOOGITY, Let's Go Racin', boys! I like to go LEFT!
On June 18 2013 13:16 dcemuser wrote: I don't understand why people create threads on this in the year 2013. We realized in flipping 2011 that the community was split 50/50 on this and that any further discussion was pointless. We debated this for like two full months of nothing but extended series. There are two ENTIRE State of the Game episodes on extended series, both featuring MLG employees.
People raised good points on both sides. The most notable I recall was Nony arguing that "if the goal of the tournament is to have the highest chance possible to award victory to the best player, then extended series must be implemented."
However, people raised the counterpoints that it was bad for spectators, and the majority of the people against extended series were against it because of how it could ruin the Grand Finals for spectators.
Since that problem doesn't exist here, the whine is irrelevant.
... and cue the liars. It was 75% against it from this community and that was back in 2010. Regardless the polls don't matter, right Mr. Nelson? Just a tiny sample size. Let's go around the event asking everyone whether or not they like it. Let's ask all the players and the verdict is always the same.
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?
No it is not fair for the winning player. He already got an advantage, why does he need two?
I don't know what the figure is Starstruck, from my travels definitely higher than 75% opposed, but that's not representative of the scene's followers as whole.
I just think the extended format that MLG does is needlessly complicated. If you want to give players more than 1 chance, go with a simple group stage format or double elimination, I think MLG's format of giving the undefeated player some sort of game advantage is trying to make it too fair.
edit: I think that something like first map choice would already be adequate; you could choose your best maps or maps where you have something special planned, which is already a big enough advantage.
100% 'fairness' is not really achievable. I mean, brackets are not always created equal either, a player can get an easier run than an opponent who dropped into Loser's, if the bracket is really stacked in one half for example.
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.
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.
On June 18 2013 13:02 MonkSEA wrote: 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.
Why is it fair?
The players are meeting again under new circumstances. And if you would really make it "fair" you would have to take every series between player A and player B into account. Those lucky newbies wont have anything "on the record", but the serious pros would have to play "bo25" or something similarly ridiculous.
Extended series is awful for the tournament schedule, because a bo3 can "mutate" into a bo5 potentially.
On June 18 2013 13:02 MonkSEA wrote: Leave extended series as it is, it's tried and tested and works.
... right until Goody plays a slow-mech bo5 match against someone else who isnt in a hurry and the whole thing turns into a 3 hour marathon.
Extended series is a PENALTY for all players involved if they have to play more than 3 games, because MLG is a "marathon" and not a "Korean one match per day" tournament. Thus it is in no way fair and clearly doesnt work.
Extended series, although somewhere it isn't unreasonable, is a bad idea.
Why? Because it confuses the viewership. This concept is pretty hard to grasp for someone just tuning in, and a higher chance of them saying "fuck this shit", and zapping away. Why make things more complex than they already are, double-elimination is difficult enough to understand. Just make the semis a BO5 or something.
A tournament structure should always be easy to understand, and this isn't. That's bad.
So is there any other sport/event that got something like extended series? I am really trying to figure out why they keep hammering it even tough the majority clearly dislikes it.
On June 19 2013 03:02 Assirra wrote: So is there any other sport/event that got something like extended series? I am really trying to figure out why they keep hammering it even tough the majority clearly dislikes it.
Most major sports don't have double elimination. However, most major sports have some sort of advantage built into their rules for the more winning team, like more home games in the playoffs. That kind of stuff is a big deal. In America Football, some teams have domes, but others have outdoor fields and which one they play on can really affect a team.
So nothing exactly like extended series, but there is stuff out there that gives the advantage to the team/player who is higher ranked.
On June 19 2013 03:02 Assirra wrote: So is there any other sport/event that got something like extended series? I am really trying to figure out why they keep hammering it even tough the majority clearly dislikes it.
Most major sports don't have double elimination. However, most major sports have some sort of advantage built into their rules for the more winning team, like more home games in the playoffs. That kind of stuff is a big deal. In America Football, some teams have domes, but others have outdoor fields and which one they play on can really affect a team.
So nothing exactly like extended series, but there is stuff out there that gives the advantage to the team/player who is higher ranked.
While that is certainly big that is not even close to extended series tough. Instead of giving more home games it should be more compared to giving a free point when the match start. Sure playing on the field you are used to have an advantage but it's not giving you free points in a match (unless you trapped the place )
On June 19 2013 03:02 Assirra wrote: So is there any other sport/event that got something like extended series? I am really trying to figure out why they keep hammering it even tough the majority clearly dislikes it.
Most major sports don't have double elimination. However, most major sports have some sort of advantage built into their rules for the more winning team, like more home games in the playoffs. That kind of stuff is a big deal. In America Football, some teams have domes, but others have outdoor fields and which one they play on can really affect a team.
So nothing exactly like extended series, but there is stuff out there that gives the advantage to the team/player who is higher ranked.
While that is certainly big that is not even close to extended series tough. Instead of giving more home games it should be more compared to giving a free point when the match start. Sure playing on the field you are used to have an advantage but it's not giving you free points in a match (unless you trapped the place )
The Superbowl is held if February and my home team play in the snow, ice and frost. It is a huge advantage if they get more games at home than away in the play offs. Since American football is a bo1, that stuff matters a lot.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uImTG7D.png?1)
