|
Edit: Confirmation from Shrew in the TL IRC. If the LB player wins the extended series, he wins the tournament.
Edit: Here's the best explanation I've heard, from tappi in the TL IRC. I'm not saying I agree with everything it says, but I do think that it's the best case for MLG's rules that I've heard so far. Thanks, tappi.paraphrasing tappi:
The overarching aim of the tournament is to have the best players duke it out in the final. Double elimination is an attempt to facilitate that by giving people a second chance when they get a little unlucky, but it's imperfect. When you get a rematch, double elimination should be ignored, because what really matters is seeing who the better player is overall, and at that point, the best way to do that is to just play a longer series and see who comes out on top. In the grand final, then, a single extended series is still the best option, and we should just ignore double elim rules, because they're not serving any purpose at that point.
OP:
I don't want to talk about extended series as a whole. Let's suppose they're fair, just for the sake of the discussion in this thread. I want to talk about one facet of MLG's tournament structure, which I think is especially bizarre, and for which I still haven't heard a justification.
Set-up: Suppose that Incontrol puts Machine into losers and then plays him again later in the tournament. There are two cases.- Case 1: Incontrol and Machine play in the losers bracket. In this case, in a normal double-elimination format, both Incontrol and Machine would have to win 2 games to advance. With the extended series, however, Machine has to win 3 or 4, depending on whether Incontrol won 2-0 or 2-1 in their earlier meeting.
- Case 2: Incontrol and Machine play in the grand final. In this case, in a normal double-elimination format, Incontrol would have to win one bo3 to win the tournament, and Machine would have to win 2 bo3s. With the extended series, however, this case is exactly the same as case 1: Incontrol has to win 2 games total, and Machine has to win 3 or 4, depending on whether Incontrol won 2-0 or 2-1 in their earlier meeting. I'm pretty sure this is right. If rematches in the grand final actually work differently, MLG needs to revise their rules.
Question for MLG: Why do you think that Incontrol should have no greater advantage over Machine in a grand final rematch (when he has not lost a match all tournament) than he has in a losers bracket rematch (when he has lost to someone else)?
Put another way: Why do you think the standard double-elimination format is unfair to Incontrol in a losers bracket rematch but potentially unfair to Machine in a grand final rematch? (Potentially unfair because although Incontrol's job is a little easier—he can go WLLW and win the tournament, which he can't do in a double-elimination format—Machine's might be much easier, because he might only have to win 3 games instead of 4.)
Bonus round! In most cases, it's guaranteed that Incontrol can't advance past Machine without having a winning record over him. That's the entire purpose of extended series, isn't it? But suppose that Incontrol and Machine meet for the first time in the grand final, and Machine is coming from losers. They play a first bo3, and if Machine wins it, they play a second bo3, not an extended series. If Machine goes WW LWL, he will have an overall record of 3-2 against Incontrol, but Incontrol will win the grand final.
I think this is fair, because I think the standard double-elimination format is fair and extended series are stupid. But you (MLG) think extended series are better. So, bonus question: Why, in a grand final that isn't a rematch, do you revert to the standard double-elimination bracket? Why don't you instead say that Incontrol and Machine play a bo3, and then if Machine wins the bo3, it turns into a bo7? From some comments on the MLG forums, it seems like they might have done this in the past. But they don't do it now. What gives?
I know, I posted before about extended series generally. But with Dallas looming and the old thread mostly talking about the broader issue, I hope this thread passes muster. Sorry, mods, if it's too much of a rehash and needs to be closed.
|
It's honestly just a really dumb thing MLG does. Similar to having to raise your hand and wait for a ref to come over so you can pause the game.
I've never even heard of it before. I don't think it's actually based on any real clearcut logic or precedence besides someone thinking that if you beat someone once you should have an advantage if you meet them in losers.
It's just one of those MLG things people scratch their heads at trying to understand. Similar to porting over all their HALO rules straight for SC2. You just kind of think, well at least something exists doing north american tournaments and leave it at that.
|
Love MLG events but omg they need to change their tournament setup its probably the worst I've ever seen.
A finals decided (potentially) by only 2 games is so anti-climactic too the last MLG event left me sitting there wondering "oh so thats it then i guess. huh."
The extended series is pretty silly too. Just doesn't make sense I see no reason to implement this convoluted system. Oh well /rant
|
I think in the future they will change this, other than MLG itself, I don't think I've seen anyone else who thinks the extended series is good/fair in general.
|
I think they don't have extended series for grand finals because it'd be a grueling punishment to players (which extended series is anyways, but it'd be doubly so in finals given the frequency players have to play near the end).
Imagine Machine was 0-2 vs Incontrol and met him in grand finals.
Machine would have to win 4 games to take the first bo7 (with the extended series). That's potentially 5 games if the series goes 4-1.
Then you'd have another extension on top of that and if you keep the concept of the extended series then it'd start at 4-3 and would have to be a best of 11 which could potentially mean another 4 games to end it at 5-6.
So basically you'd have the potential for a 9 game back to back finals on top of the games the players have already played which is insane.
Finals decided potentially by 2 games is kinda needed. Imagine if the finals were best of 5. You could potentially have 10 back to back games. The only way it might be reasonable is if it was a best of 5 followed by a best of 3 so only 8 games max, but that gives the winner's bracket player a huge advantage.
|
The rule is really stupid, it has been illustrated many times by people far more influential than you and I, but for some reason MLG is really sticking to it. They seem reluctant to acknowledge any sort of flaw in their tournament system, let alone try to change things for the better.
|
On November 06 2010 00:27 Reason.SC2 wrote:
Love MLG events but omg they need to change their tournament setup its probably the worst I've ever seen.
A finals decided (potentially) by only 2 games is so anti-climactic too the last MLG event left me sitting there wondering "oh so thats it then i guess. huh."
The extended series is pretty silly too. Just doesn't make sense I see no reason to implement this convoluted system. Oh well /rant
GSL is anti-climactic as well, losing 2 rounds in a row early on should not boot you out of the entire tourney.
It makes "bracket luck."
Say you got 2-0'ed in Ro64. Your out,
Say you get 2-0'ed in Ro8, but then come back and win 3 times and 3-2. Your still in.
It's kinda dumb.
|
On November 06 2010 00:30 floor exercise wrote:
The rule is really stupid, it has been illustrated many times by people far more influential than you and I, but for some reason MLG is really sticking to it. They seem reluctant to acknowledge any sort of flaw in their tournament system, let alone try to change things for the better.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Why change the rules mid season when they're not so bad as to break the tournament. I wouldn't be surprised to see new rules next season. Remember SC2 is new to MLG and it's basically exploded in their face (in a good way).
|
On November 06 2010 00:30 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 00:27 Reason.SC2 wrote:
Love MLG events but omg they need to change their tournament setup its probably the worst I've ever seen.
A finals decided (potentially) by only 2 games is so anti-climactic too the last MLG event left me sitting there wondering "oh so thats it then i guess. huh."
The extended series is pretty silly too. Just doesn't make sense I see no reason to implement this convoluted system. Oh well /rant
GSL is anti-climactic as well, losing 2 rounds in a row early on should not boot you out of the entire tourney. It makes "bracket luck." Say you got 2-0'ed in Ro64. Your out, Say you get 2-0'ed in Ro8, but then come back and win 3 times and 3-2. Your still in. It's kinda dumb.
This isn't about comparing one tournament format to another tournament format. This is wondering why MLG decided to introduce their own little rule to a very popular Double-Elimination tournament format.
|
On November 06 2010 00:30 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 00:27 Reason.SC2 wrote:
Love MLG events but omg they need to change their tournament setup its probably the worst I've ever seen.
A finals decided (potentially) by only 2 games is so anti-climactic too the last MLG event left me sitting there wondering "oh so thats it then i guess. huh."
The extended series is pretty silly too. Just doesn't make sense I see no reason to implement this convoluted system. Oh well /rant
GSL is anti-climactic as well, losing 2 rounds in a row early on should not boot you out of the entire tourney. It makes "bracket luck." Say you got 2-0'ed in Ro64. Your out, Say you get 2-0'ed in Ro8, but then come back and win 3 times and 3-2. Your still in. It's kinda dumb.
not really this a slight off topic but it still has to do with tournament rules
GSL broadcasts every single match of the tournament from round of 64 on. Also the players have a lot more time to prepare for each matchup and map. Putting in a losers bracket to GSL would add a lot more matches and take a lot of excitement away. There is a pretty clear reason why GSL does single elimination tournaments, it's easiest to follow, lots of players/matchups but a quick and "decisive" system where more variance occurs.
It's like a march madness every month. Also the GSL is in pre season, meaning these tournaments are to determine who is "s-class" etc for next years real season which will have seedings and all that good stuff.
The thing with "extended series" isn't about liking single elim or double elim etc, it's just about it being a dumb rule that doesn't really make any sense at all. I don't think people really dislike the double elim or single elim although people might have preference. This is about a "critical" flaw in the rule, aka that it makes no real sense whatsoever.
EX1: I get far in winners bracket, and lose and play someone who was knocked down really early in the tournament. I have no advantage and we play a bo3.
EX2: I get far in winners bracket, and lose and play someone who I beat early on 2-1 or 2-0 in the tournament. I have an advantage and only have to win 2 games to his 3 or 4.
It just punishes players randomly if they meet someone who has beaten them already, while in other cases they don't get punished.
|
On November 06 2010 00:30 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 00:27 Reason.SC2 wrote:
Love MLG events but omg they need to change their tournament setup its probably the worst I've ever seen.
A finals decided (potentially) by only 2 games is so anti-climactic too the last MLG event left me sitting there wondering "oh so thats it then i guess. huh."
The extended series is pretty silly too. Just doesn't make sense I see no reason to implement this convoluted system. Oh well /rant
GSL is anti-climactic as well, losing 2 rounds in a row early on should not boot you out of the entire tourney. It makes "bracket luck." Say you got 2-0'ed in Ro64. Your out, Say you get 2-0'ed in Ro8, but then come back and win 3 times and 3-2. Your still in. It's kinda dumb.
That's pretty incoherent. I'm talking about the "grand" finals mostly. Following a 3 day event that builds up to an epic battle of ... 2 games that could end in a total of 10 minutes. That's lame.
Bracket luck is a factor in any elimination tournament that doesn't have an extensive seeding system. Double elimination attempts to resolve this but the extended series is just silly.
My point in case you somehow missed it is that
1) Grand finals being a BO3 is potentially disastrous as it creates the likelihood of a very boring grand finals.
2) Extended series accomplishes nothing to mitigate 'bracket luck'.
|
To put it all together I might actually like extended series if we were talking about a tournament where each game/round was spread out across multiple days and with a larger # of players. The big draw back of extended series in MLG is that it tires the player(s) out and makes them less able to perform well in later rounds. Also with the smaller size of the SC2 tournaments it means you're much more likely to face the person who knocked you into the loser's bracket.
|
On November 06 2010 00:29 Logo wrote:
I think they don't have extended series for grand finals because it'd be a grueling punishment to players (which extended series is anyways, but it'd be doubly so in finals given the frequency players have to play near the end). I think you mean that this is why they don't have an even longer series in the grand final (because they do have a normal extended series if it's a rematch). You're absolutely right, it would be long. But if you beat someone earlier, right now there is no difference between meeting that person in the losers bracket and meeting that person in the grand final. MLG seems to think that in the grand final, you do not deserve an advantage for never losing a match if the person coming from the losers bracket is someone you've played earlier. That makes no sense to me, even if I assume that extended series are fair.
|
On November 06 2010 00:49 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 00:29 Logo wrote:
I think they don't have extended series for grand finals because it'd be a grueling punishment to players (which extended series is anyways, but it'd be doubly so in finals given the frequency players have to play near the end). I think you mean that this is why they don't have an even longer series in the grand final (because they do have a normal extended series if it's a rematch). You're absolutely right, it would be long. But if you beat someone earlier, right now there is no difference between meeting that person in the losers bracket and meeting that person in the grand final. MLG seems to think that in the grand final, you do not deserve an advantage for never losing a match if the person coming from the losers bracket is someone you've played earlier. That makes no sense to me, even if I assume that extended series are fair.
In the Grand Final, the person who came from the Losers bracket must win two Bo3's, while the person who won the Winners Bracket only has to win one of those two Bo3's.
How is that not an advantage?
|
On November 06 2010 01:07 Hikko wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2010 00:49 Pyrthas wrote:On November 06 2010 00:29 Logo wrote:
I think they don't have extended series for grand finals because it'd be a grueling punishment to players (which extended series is anyways, but it'd be doubly so in finals given the frequency players have to play near the end). I think you mean that this is why they don't have an even longer series in the grand final (because they do have a normal extended series if it's a rematch). You're absolutely right, it would be long. But if you beat someone earlier, right now there is no difference between meeting that person in the losers bracket and meeting that person in the grand final. MLG seems to think that in the grand final, you do not deserve an advantage for never losing a match if the person coming from the losers bracket is someone you've played earlier. That makes no sense to me, even if I assume that extended series are fair. In the Grand Final, the person who came from the Losers bracket must win two Bo3's, while the person who won the Winners Bracket only has to win one of those two Bo3's. How is that not an advantage? You're absolutely right about what happens when the grand final isn't a rematch. When it is a rematch, however, it turns into a normal extended series. That's the point of Case 2 in the OP.
Put another way, this bold clause is important. It's what puts us into the situation in Case 2 from the OP, rather than the situation in the bonus question.
On November 06 2010 00:49 Pyrthas wrote:
MLG seems to think that in the grand final, you do not deserve an advantage for never losing a match if the person coming from the losers bracket is someone you've played earlier. That makes no sense to me, even if I assume that extended series are fair.
Edit: These are the full rules, if you want to check. They only talk about what happens in the grand final when the two players haven't played before (that's rule 7), so rule 6 kicks in when the two players have played before. The WoW tourney in DC ended with an extended series in the grand final, so this is how it works. The only thing I'm uncertain of is whether anything gets played after the extended series if the LB player wins the extended series. This would give the WB player an advantage (depending on what's played afterward, perhaps too much of an advantage), but there's nothing in the rules about it, so for now I think we have to assume that the answer is, "No, if the LB player wins the extended series, he or she wins the tournament."
|
Extended Series and Starcraft
What Is Extended Series
Many people know what the extended series rule is but I will still explain it for all those who don’t. Extended series is a tournament rule that says the following, in a double elimination tournament when two players play each other in the winners bracket and player A loses and player B wins than player A is put into the losers bracket, as like any other double elimination tournament. Extended series comes into play when player B loses to another player in the winners bracket and gets moved down into the losers bracket, and then because player A was moved into the losers bracket before, they get paired up again. In other words the extended rule applies when player A and player B play each other in the winners bracket and then play each other again in the losers bracket. What the extended series rule says that if player B won 2-0 in the winners bracket, and they play again in the losers bracket, than the game that would normally be a BO3 in the losers bracket becomes a BO7 with player B starting with a 2-0 on player A.
Why MLG uses extended series
Most of what I am going to say here comes from the SOTG cast because it is the only reliable source of why MLG uses this rule. The rule arises from the concept that a tournament is a measure of performance and that should stay with you. So that if you already beat someone in a BO3 than if you face them you are already ahead because you won against them in this tournament. The other reason it is used is because if you play someone and you beat them 2-0 and then they beat you 2-0 later than you are 2-2 but you lost because you won the first and lost the second, which they think is unfair. All of this makes sense on a player vs player level.
Why it doesn’t work
When using this extended series rule it is partly forgotten that the players are still playing a tournament and they are not in some arbitrary system of ranking. In a double elimination tournament every series is a best of 3 and each person, in order to stay in the tournament, cannot lose two best of 3s hence double elimination. In a double elimination the fact that if you lose once does not eliminate you brings about the possibility that players can vs the same player in two best of 3s. When this happens and the extended series rule applied this changes the structure of the tournament because of a chance happening in the winners brackets. Now that they are playing each other for the second time, the person who lost the first game, if he loses another best of 3 is still eliminated, but the winner of the first series gets to get a free loss vs this player, making it so that player gets eliminated if he loses 3 best of 3s instead of 2. What this means is that a player can advance in the losers bracket even know he already lost 2 best of 3s while the opponent he eliminated only lost 2 best of 3s. So now the person who won the first best of 3 vs a player and meets him again does not only gain an advantage over that player but he also gains an advantage over everyone else in the tournament in the light that he is allowed to lose more games than everyone else and still advance.
Closing Comments
Time to suck up to MLG XD. MLG you run great tourneys and I watch them all and if one comes to a town near me I will defiantly come. No part of this is to say that MLG is bad it is all simply an explanation of the rule, why its used, and some reasons that should be considered for altering this rule.
|
Braavos36388 Posts
There's really no need to bump this. We've heard the same arguments over and over, I'm sure MLG knows everyone's ideas on this and stances. I think everyone is tired of discussing this to death.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
