|
On November 08 2010 06:07 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:06 HCastorp wrote:
You guys realize that the alternative to an extended series is that the loser would have to win two Bo3s, not that they would play a simple Bo3, right? There is still going to be an advantage for the player who won the first time. The main difference is that under the extended series system it matters whether the original series was 2:0 or 2:1, whereas in the BoBo3 system it does not. The winner has less games to play to make it to that point. That is a serious advantage.
Understood. But you need to understand what you are voting for in the poll on their website. If they move away from the extended series, it will be in favor of a "BoBo3" system, not in favor of a system that resets the results.
Just to point out the situation that could arise from the results being reset:
You beat a player 2:0 in WB. They come back through the losers bracket and defeat you 2:1. You won three games to their two, but the second series counts for more than the first because it happened later.
I think there is a reasonable argument to be made for having a "BoBo3" system instead of the extended series, but either are more fair imo than resetting the series.
|
If we ignore all past results then that would mean for the sake of consistency you'd have to remove the winner bracket's champion having an advantage over the loser's bracket, no? If not, why draw the line there and not simply for beating an earlier opponent? Why does that logic apply there but not later?
Double elimination, meaning that a player must lose two series to be eliminated. Coming into the final the LB player has one loss already, the WB player has none. Extended series in the LB can effectively make it triple elimination.
|
On November 08 2010 06:12 Count9 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:07 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On November 08 2010 06:01 Numy wrote:On November 08 2010 06:00 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
Even the wording of their poll is wrong. The extended series rule is 100% fair... whether or not they want to use it is a different story. But there's certainly nothing more fair/unfair about it than without the extended series rule. How is it 100% fair? Please explain your reasoning. As I view it , it is very unfair for any player that does not face the same opponent in LB as in WB. I'm sure everyone would love to have extra chances. If we ignore all past results then that would mean for the sake of consistency you'd have to remove the winner bracket's champion having an advantage over the loser's bracket, no? No because the person in the winner's bracket has never been eliminated by another player, two people in the loser's bracket have both already been eliminated once by someone else. If one such player was eliminated by his opponent previously in the winner's bracket then it's like he's actually playing from the loser's-loser's bracket where he has to beat his opponent (in the same bracket as he is) twice. In the grand final the two players are in different brackets so it makes sense the winner's bracket player has an advantage, in the loser's bracket both players are in the exact same bracket, yet someone still has to eliminate his opponent twice as if he was in a third super-lower bracket.
This this this this this.
Why do people not understand this? In a standard double elim tournament if you lose two matches you are out no matter what that is it (this also means you need to lose two matches to be eliminated no matter what)
|
On November 08 2010 06:12 Firereaver wrote:
Lovely defence against the 4gay! Gosh PRotoss in this torney.. Just lulz. 'Cept for Tyler, HuK, Socke and maybe KiwiKaki.
Naz might eat your face... haha just kidding.
|
On November 08 2010 06:13 killerkoala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:10 Serpico wrote:On November 08 2010 06:09 Firereaver wrote:On November 08 2010 06:04 Ryzu wrote:
Thread spiraling into mass whining. Another quality LR thread. Its inevitable. Immaturity abounds without mod interference.. You're joking right? You think mods should stop a perfectly valid discussion? Good lord, stop asking to have your hand held. This not a LIVE DEBATE thread. It is LIVE REPORT.
Wait what? You dont think people debate strategy or whether a player should have done A, B or C? Get real. It's related to the tourney and the games being played.
|
TT1's pylon spread is really good. He is in good shape this game
|
|
|
I agree with Logros. It isn't an "all-in"
Question, in game 2 why does Pain.user insist on 2rax>fac>expo when TT1 did the exact same contain in the first game? a 3rax build could of pressured TT1 and kept him from massing units at his ramp. It's baffling.
|
You get real. You're all arguing about rules and not the current game(s) being played. Reading is hard, I know.
edit: this post @ Serpico
|
|
|
There's a game going on, save the arguing for the breaks at least. Last two pages there's like 2 posts about the actual GAME.
|
anyone else think it's ridiculous toss can 4 or 3gate rush and contain with FF while expanding?
|
Sentry contain is going to be popular as fuck soon.
|
why vikings vs toss with no stargate?
|
On November 08 2010 06:15 SikLyric wrote:
anyone else think it's ridiculous toss can 4 or 3gate rush and contain with FF while expanding?
No.
|
People are complaining because the rule is stupid, nothing wrong with that.
Giving some edge in the final to the winner of the WB is fine since he/she has not been eliminated once, but some tournaments in other sports do not even do that, since the LB is demanding in itself due to the amount of games you have to win.
But MLG for some odd reason have to add another rule that makes no sense at all, where two players with one elimination each suddenly are playing an extended series. As has been mentioned, PU would have been eliminated at 1-2 and may now win the tournament although he should have been out after double elimination (not his fault of course).
There are also far more entertaining and fair formats, like round robin into single elimination.
|
On November 08 2010 06:13 nhoJJohn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 06:12 Firereaver wrote:
Lovely defence against the 4gay! Gosh PRotoss in this torney.. Just lulz. 'Cept for Tyler, HuK, Socke and maybe KiwiKaki. Naz might eat your face... haha just kidding.
Don't even bring up Naz....Lol.
|
On November 08 2010 06:15 Pinith wrote:
why vikings vs toss with no stargate?
Colossi?
|
On November 08 2010 06:15 Pinith wrote:
why vikings vs toss with no stargate?
because vikings attack colussi* 
|
PU really loves his late game 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
