It's like the best of one in OSL. Extended series have been proven time and time again to degrade the quality, integrity, and excitement of tournaments, yet MLG brings them back.

This is why I will not really be watching MLG anymore. Thanks for making my decision easy, Sundance and crew.

Deckard.666

150 Posts

June 24 2013 02:20 GMT

Everyone is going to disapprove w/o knowing it doesn't affect the finals.

I really don't know how can people hate that rule so much when the only thing it does is bring fairness for the players.

banjoetheredskin

United States743 Posts

June 24 2013 03:00 GMT

Would someone be kind enough to explain how this extended series works?

MajuGarzett

Canada616 Posts

June 24 2013 04:13 GMT

On June 24 2013 12:00 banjoetheredskin wrote:
Would someone be kind enough to explain how this extended series works?

If two players face each other in the tournament any future encounters between those two players is a best of five starting with the result of the first best of three instead of a regular best of three.

Buddy168

United States156 Posts

June 24 2013 05:43 GMT

I like trains.

But not extended series.

QCD

Suriname81 Posts

June 24 2013 06:30 GMT

On June 24 2013 11:13 Nuclease wrote:
It's like the best of one in OSL. Extended series have been proven time and time again to degrade the quality, integrity, and excitement of tournaments, yet MLG brings them back.

This is why I will not really be watching MLG anymore. Thanks for making my decision easy, Sundance and crew.

So you're going to completely miss out on MLG because of a bracket style you disagree with? Doubtful, nice bluff however.

I think if they're going to do this it should be bo7.

Azelja

Japan622 Posts

June 24 2013 08:12 GMT

On June 24 2013 11:20 Deckard.666 wrote:
Everyone is going to disapprove w/o knowing it doesn't affect the finals.

I really don't know how can people hate that rule so much when the only thing it does is bring fairness for the players.

That's highly debated and I don't see the "fairness" in the rule at all, but that's for a different thread.
Yes, I know it doesn't affect the finals, still voted for disapprove because the system's bullshit, imo.

Tyrran

France652 Posts

June 24 2013 08:45 GMT

#10

I like the extended series

Seriously.

Headnoob

Australia1964 Posts

June 24 2013 10:52 GMT

#11

At least i don't have to watch MLG now.

Psychonian

United States2291 Posts

June 24 2013 11:31 GMT

#12

Yes because this was an extended series

figq

11850 Posts

June 24 2013 13:57 GMT

#13

MLG kills puppies and little WhiteRas. So sad.

Greendotz

United Kingdom2041 Posts

June 24 2013 15:34 GMT

#14

I don't think there's actually anything wrong with the idea, it sounds fair to me. Either way I'm totally neutral on the subject. Perhaps it's strongest point is that in the finals we may not have that awkward monument when the losers bracket guy wins a set and we then have to play another set to determine the winner

LoKi-

United States120 Posts

June 24 2013 15:50 GMT

#15

It's interesting that this is so polarized. I personally don't mind it (I like it, really, but I don't feel too strongly either way). Could somebody please provide me with an argument against it, other than "it's unfair?" Because it seems to me that it's completely fair to retain the previous Bo3's standings when the same players meet again - it encourages solid play throughout the entire Bo3 because even losing 2-1 is better than losing 2-0. It also seems to add some excitement/story to the games when you can tell so clearly that these two players have met before in this tournament, and it actually matters fairly significantly.

Ichabod

United States1657 Posts

June 24 2013 18:31 GMT

#16

On June 25 2013 00:50 LoKi- wrote:
It's interesting that this is so polarized. I personally don't mind it (I like it, really, but I don't feel too strongly either way). Could somebody please provide me with an argument against it, other than "it's unfair?" Because it seems to me that it's completely fair to retain the previous Bo3's standings when the same players meet again - it encourages solid play throughout the entire Bo3 because even losing 2-1 is better than losing 2-0. It also seems to add some excitement/story to the games when you can tell so clearly that these two players have met before in this tournament, and it actually matters fairly significantly.

The argument I frequently hear is that it reduces the level of excitement if it happens in the finals. The finals all of a sudden become slightly less decisive just because the players met in round 1 or something. It is my understanding that the MLG Anaheim bracket will be two 64-man brackets, so an extended series cannot occur in the finals.

I am not that opposed to it, but it seems slightly odd for MLG to be so ardently stubborn about it, even though they phased it out of their other games (It hasn't been in their MOBA titles, and I don't think it is in CoD, but I could be wrong on that count.) It is a little bit irritating that MLG doesn't simply state its rationale for extended series, some explanation would undoubtedly be preferable to "blame John Nelson."

I think there was a thread a while ago where someone analyzed the statistical effect that extended series has on a bracket. I believe his simulations resulted in the agent with the greatest chance to win, winning more often than without extended series.

+ Show Spoiler +

Something like this: 60-40 players A and B. 36% chance that A wins 2-0, 28.8% that A wins 2-1, 19.2% chance that B wins 2-1, 16% chance that B wins 2-0

DavoS

United States1909 Posts

June 24 2013 22:28 GMT

#17

I don't mind extended series, but the fact that MLG brackets force these repeat matches as often as possible makes it really annoying

a9arnn

United States1533 Posts

June 24 2013 22:45 GMT

#18

I didn't particularly care if they brought it back/didn't. I'm confident former LighT ain't gonna be dropping down into the LB for it to matter ;D!

ValhallaDude

United States23 Posts

June 25 2013 00:08 GMT

#19

I don't see why so many people have this purely emotional aversion to the extended series.

If a player beats another player earlier on in the tournament and goes on to win all matches and he faces that player again in the finals, why would it not be an extended series?

Why does the player who wins get a double jeopardy and the player who loses get a second chance?

We don't try people for the same crime twice. This should be no different.

Boucot

France15997 Posts

June 25 2013 03:20 GMT

#20

What I don't like and I find "unfair" in this system is that it gives an advantage to a player who is at the same stage of the tournament as his opponent. Both players have lost a series. Why would a player suffer such a disadvantage because he lost to the "wrong" player ? That's why I dislike extended series.