On December 01 2010 17:44 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
It is much worse for spectators. It's hard to hype things up and get excited to watch when one player starts off behind the 8 ball.

Indeed. Watching a finals with one guy starting out 2-0 is neither fun, nor fair.

ComusLoM

Norway3547 Posts

December 01 2010 17:01 GMT

#102

I look at it this way. If two people meet early in the tournament and one person gets knocked to the losers bracket and they meet later: Both people have lost one game against someone, just because player A won against player B earlier doesn't change the fact that player A has also lost a best of 3. It's a bad rule that makes no sense to me.

Flicky

England2669 Posts

December 01 2010 17:06 GMT

#103

On December 02 2010 01:42 Chill wrote:

Show nested quote +

I think you can understand the analogy...

YesI do, I was just pointing out a difference, unfortunately Naz has a good point with:

On December 02 2010 01:52 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
]
The more reason why it is bad. 2-1 or 2-0 is huge whereas 7-6 has a lot less influence. The lower the scores for a game the worse this rule is, because the lower the scores the more influence it has to bring them back.

keeblur

United States826 Posts

December 01 2010 17:10 GMT

#104

nevermind.

zemiron

United States481 Posts

December 01 2010 17:30 GMT

#105

I don't like it. Personally I think they should get rid of the double elimination format should be dropped. This format (combined with the extended series) generally make the finals less exciting. Pretty much ever finals at MLG has sucked and it's partly because they have either been an extended series or a Bo3. Bo5 or Bo7 are so much more exciting than Bo3 and is the format that should be used for the final.

Bosu

United States3247 Posts

December 01 2010 17:35 GMT

#106

It blows my fucking mind that anyone can argue in favor of extended series. And hearing Lee say that it is unlikely to change in 2011 is absolutely insane.

Thetan

240 Posts

December 01 2010 17:48 GMT

#107

On December 02 2010 02:10 keeblur wrote:

Show nested quote +

Imagine a BO1 Tourney with Winner / Losers Brackets. You lose then run into the guy you beat in the Winner Bracket down in the Losers. Would your opponent default lose because you already have one game up on him? Just saying.

OR they could just do a bo3 extended series, where the first person to 2 wins overall goes through.

That sounds pretty fair, doesn't it? That's closer to what MLG does than your situation

keeblur

United States826 Posts

December 01 2010 17:55 GMT

#108

On December 02 2010 02:48 Thetan wrote:

Show nested quote +

OR they could just do a bo3 extended series, where the first person to 2 wins overall goes through.

That sounds pretty fair, doesn't it? That's closer to what MLG does than your situation

Actually what I wrote doesn't make sense, because it would be the same case for anything that stayed the same number of matches to win throughout the tourney.

ulf5

Sweden208 Posts

December 01 2010 17:58 GMT

#109

I kind of dislike the double elimination format altogether, should just be group play(with more than Bo1...) and then single elimination. It takes away some of the excitement knowing that one player in the finals has to win twice.

Gnarg

Netherlands165 Posts

December 01 2010 17:58 GMT

#110

The main issue I have with this rule is that double elimination should imo give players a second chance if they fuck up. With this rule you are not forgiven for making a mistake in a single series.

Quotidian

Norway1937 Posts

December 01 2010 19:11 GMT

#111

Extended series is just too punitive. It's benificial enough for the winner to continue on in the winner's bracket, and it's enough of a set back for the loser to be sent to the loser's bracket. Anything else is excessive.

Also, extended series is not a good way to filter out the "best players" because games in SC2 are always going volitile and the best player might not always win the first bo3. The concept of a tournament having a "memory" of your performance isn't interesting enough to warrant all the draw backs to extended series.

After the SotG interview, it just seems like MLG are just too hung up on and proud about having their own way of doing things to be able to see that it's damaging their tournament. Basically, anything that is so convoluted that casters have to repetitively set off time to explain the system is a bad thing for the audience and the tournament as a whole.

Canadium

Canada171 Posts

December 01 2010 19:35 GMT

#112

Not designed for Starcraft? That doesn't make any sense. An extended series is a slightly more accurate way to which player is more skilled. There was a very long thread about this posted not too long ago. I think the reason most of you are saying no is because it's different from what you're used to..... Just sayin :/

Deleted User 61629

1664 Posts

December 01 2010 19:43 GMT

#113

--- Nuked ---

Warent

Sweden205 Posts

December 01 2010 19:43 GMT

#114

If I had lost a game in a final against someone whom I previously knocked to the losers bracket I would wonder; "where is my second chance?"

Canadium

Canada171 Posts

December 01 2010 20:03 GMT

#115

"No it's retarded" is not an argument.... /facepalm.

Drteeth

Great Britain415 Posts

December 01 2010 20:23 GMT

#116

I thought Lee's stock answer of "that's the way Halo does it" Grew a little (alot) irritating.
This isn't Halo, thank God.

Who brings in the most spectators to MLG these days? I bet you a dollar to a bucket of shit it sure isn't Halo.

MLG won't change as they have the Monopoly, as you guys who heard the podcast say, "best in North America"
....

Enock927

United States30 Posts

December 01 2010 20:48 GMT

#117

I Like the extended series mind set, I dont like the fact that the player starts at a disadvantage. I think that if a player gets knocked into the losers bracket and later in the tournment faces the same players, they should play an extended bo5 or bo7 but starting at a clean slate... Thus giving the player that initially won a better chance at winning again by playing more games. On the flip side, if the winning player won with two six pools or proxy gateways/racks then the player that got knocked into the losers bracket would have a bit more to work with.

That seems like it would be the best scenario imo

xZiGGY

United Kingdom801 Posts

December 01 2010 20:55 GMT

#118

best poll ever, as it stands the advantage offered by the MLG extended series rule seems very severe;
players unlucky enough to run into the people who knocked them out earlier in the tournament are effectively in a 1 - 1.5 elimination tournament due to this advantage; those lucky enough to avoid such scenarios are given full double elimination opportunities making their life much easier. (though not necessarily easy xD)

CrAzEdBaDgEr

Canada166 Posts

December 01 2010 20:57 GMT

#119

No, it does not provide a more accurate assessment of the best player than a simple double elimination, or better yet, a best-of-X series with more games. It is also terrible for spectators. Although I'm no Idra fan, his point alone should convince everyone that it brings significant luck into play, which is not desirable for determining the best player. There is enough luck in the game itself that it does not need to be compounded by luck within the tournament's organizational structure.

sixfour

England11061 Posts

December 01 2010 21:07 GMT

#120

I don't really care either way. I don't see any reasons for it being unfair as being that compelling