EPT[MLG] Dallas Day 3 - Page 928
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
Stay on-topic please. Off-topic arguments derailing the thread will not be tolerated. Next spam post about eagles = ban. We get it, you're funny Take the eagle stuff here stop with the bw vs wc3 bullshit please | ||
|
EchoZ
Japan5041 Posts
| ||
|
DiaBoLuS
Germany1638 Posts
if a player managed to reach a point in the grid, he should get a new and fair chance to win. And what i didnt like is the huge advantage of being #1 in pool group compared to #2. I think there shouldnt be a winner bracket at all - the #1 ranked players should simply advance to the quaterfinals of the loserbracket (4 ranked #1 guys vs 4 left players - most likely some #2 of pool group, since all 4 of them advanced to the round before and so on). You could still add a losers bracket below that. Being top 6 already just cause a bo3 groupstage with 4 games is not fair at all. the games should be bo5 furthermore. | ||
|
blackone
Germany1314 Posts
There was even an explanation before the game started; had Kiwikaki and Naniwa not met beforehands, it would have been a normal double elimination finals, meaning Naniwa needed to win one BO3 to win, Kiwikaki needed to win to. But because they met beforehands, extended series came into play and they had to play a BO7 with Naniwa being 2-0 ahead (which doesn't even change that much). I KNOW they met and Naniwa won 2-0, what I am saying is, they played 2-2 in the grand finals and that is a disappointing end of a tournament because I would really have liked it to come down to 3-3 and a final deciding match. I AM NOT saying that it is unfair, or that Naniwa should have lost or whatnot, I just think it makes for a less exciting finals. | ||
|
InFi.asc
Germany518 Posts
| ||
|
Vimsey
United Kingdom2235 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:20 blackone wrote: Please inform yourselves before you tell me what Double Elimination is... There was even an explanation before the game started; had Kiwikaki and Naniwa not met beforehands, it would have been a normal double elimination finals, meaning Naniwa needed to win one BO3 to win, Kiwikaki needed to win to. But because they met beforehands, extended series came into play and they had to play a BO7 with Naniwa being 2-0 ahead (which doesn't even change that much). I KNOW they met and Naniwa won 2-0, what I am saying is, they played 2-2 in the grand finals and that is a disappointing end of a tournament because I would really have liked it to come down to 3-3 and a final deciding match. I AM NOT saying that it is unfair, or that Naniwa should have lost or whatnot, I just think it makes for a less exciting finals. Theres no need to be like that I didnt even bother to go over what Double Elimination was I answered your point of "Which is as many as he won over Kiwi." Which was wrong, because he actually won 4 games vs Kiwikaki. Whichever way double elimination is done someone will complain about it. I do agree their way is overly complicated with an extended series which leaves them more open to criticism but it is what it is. | ||
|
Andamanen
Netherlands915 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:20 blackone wrote: Please inform yourselves before you tell me what Double Elimination is... There was even an explanation before the game started; had Kiwikaki and Naniwa not met beforehands, it would have been a normal double elimination finals, meaning Naniwa needed to win one BO3 to win, Kiwikaki needed to win two. But even a "normal double elim finals" seems kind of strange. Maybe it's just that for me the word "Final" implies a single match to determine the winner of the tournament. | ||
|
blackone
Germany1314 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:27 Vimsey wrote: Theres no need to be like that I didnt even bother to go over what Double Elimination was I answered your point of "Which is as many as he won over Kiwi." Which was wrong, because he actually won 4 games vs Kiwikaki. Whichever way double elimination is done someone will complain about it. I do agree their way is overly complicated which leaves them more open to criticism but it is what it is. Again: I was talking about the finals, in which they both won two games. And yes, of course people will complain about every possible setting. But that is not an argument for or against any of them. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18436 Posts
The extended series idea was even worse when two players met for the second time in the loser's bracket. At least for Naniwa it made sense as he hadn't lost a single match yet, but it made NO sense to carry over incontrol's wins from the group stage to the match in the loser's bracket vs. TLO. The same could be said for HuK vs. Idra, except that Idra beat the odds there. MLG really needs to fix their format... and that's on top of their shitty stream and no VODs. | ||
|
KiNGxXx
7928 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:21 InFi.asc wrote: How did TLO vs socke end? TLO won 2-0 | ||
|
Vimsey
United Kingdom2235 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:29 blackone wrote: Again: I was talking about the finals, in which they both won two games. Again it was an extended series 4-2. Ok I give up. | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:29 blackone wrote: Again: I was talking about the finals, in which they both won two games. So even if it was a bo3 double elim (no extended series) it would have gone like this. Finals kiwikaki coming from the loser bracket needs to win 2 bo3's vs naniwa who had not lost yet. Kiwi wins 2 games, he takes the first bo3, naniwa wins the next 2 winning the decider bo3. Now stop this silly discussion... this tournament had a very clear winner, NANIWA FTW! | ||
|
OPSavioR
Sweden1465 Posts
| ||
|
blackone
Germany1314 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:33 Vimsey wrote: Again it was an extended series 4-2. Ok I give up. You don't have to, I know it was, and I am not saying (PLEASE read my whole sentence) it is unfair, I just think it makes the finals (and JUST the finals. the finals!!!! the games that are played at the end of the tournament between the two finalists!) disappointing. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18436 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:33 Technique wrote: So even if it was a bo3 double elim (no extended series) it would have gone like this. Finals kiwikaki coming from the loser bracket needs to win 2 bo3's vs naniwa who had not lost yet. Kiwi wins 2 games, he takes the first bo3, naniwa wins the next 2 winning the decider bo3. Now stop this silly discussion... this tournament had a very clear winner, NANIWA FTW! I don't think anybody is contesting the winner, just the format. Naniwa deserved to win, but that doesn't mean the way the tournament played out makes sense or makes exciting matches. Analytically it makes complete sense for Naniwa to be 2-0 up in the finals before it even starts, but that doesn't mean it's much fun (unless Kiwikaki beats all odds and wins the finals). What makes even less sense is for group stage matches to still have an influence in the semi-finals of the loser bracket: the group stage was for seeding and matches should NOT carry over. | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
| ||
|
magha
Netherlands427 Posts
On April 04 2011 20:30 DrainX wrote: Norway have had some impressive results in the past compared to your population. People like  Slayer were far ahead of any Swedes in his time. You have also had some great CS players.Didnt Boxer name himself after that guy? | ||
|
ToD
France222 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18436 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:41 Technique wrote: Well it's either that or single elim... Anything else is not fair to the winner of the winner bracket. Sure it is: he has had to play less matches and has had less stress in getting there and is thus at a mental advantage without requiring a physical advantage too. A further question is whether mathematical fairness should be put ahead of spectator enjoyment. Given the goal of all major starcraft 2 tournaments to attract spectators for this up and coming eSport, this setup is a major turn-off: nobody wants to watch a "rigged" final, however much Naniwa deserved it to be rigged! | ||
Carnac
Germany / USA16648 Posts
 | ||
|
timmyfred
United States302 Posts
On April 04 2011 21:33 Technique wrote: So even if it was a bo3 double elim (no extended series) it would have gone like this. Finals kiwikaki coming from the loser bracket needs to win 2 bo3's vs naniwa who had not lost yet. Kiwi wins 2 games, he takes the first bo3, naniwa wins the next 2 winning the decider bo3. Now stop this silly discussion... this tournament had a very clear winner, NANIWA FTW! Except how it actually went was Nani won the first game, then kiwi won the next two games, giving Kiwi the first bo3, then Nani won the next game, putting him up 1-0 in the decider bo3, if it had been 2 bo3s instead of extended series. That said, I don't think that anyone could argue that Naniwa wasn't deserving of the tourney win. He was the only one to beat Kiwi at all, and very clearly had his number this weekend, going 4-2 against him. | ||
| ||
