|
On August 07 2011 18:51 Kennigit wrote:
regarding rets shirt. We shipped rets shirts when he had lost a ton of weight, he put some of it back on so after some replacements he was down to only 1 that fit - which he lost between MLG and EU invitational. It will be fixed for next event.
Omg Ret stick to the workouts ^_^
|
|
|
On August 07 2011 18:51 Kennigit wrote:
regarding rets shirt. We shipped rets shirts when he had lost a ton of weight, he put some of it back on so after some replacements he was down to only 1 that fit - which he lost between MLG and EU invitational. It will be fixed for next event.
At least, now he will have a shirt for every situation, no matter how much weight he loses/gains. 
|
only 7 hours of sleep, gosh
|
On August 07 2011 18:51 Kennigit wrote:
regarding rets shirt. We shipped rets shirts when he had lost a ton of weight, he put some of it back on so after some replacements he was down to only 1 that fit - which he lost between MLG and EU invitational. It will be fixed for next event.
Are you forcing Ret to go on a diet?! You should! 
|
On August 07 2011 18:51 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 18:49 Mairu wrote:On August 07 2011 18:46 Talin wrote:On August 07 2011 18:41 Toxi78 wrote:On August 07 2011 18:26 Talin wrote:On August 07 2011 18:13 MrBitter wrote:On August 07 2011 18:12 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:
Do they have any rules as far as players meeting twice? Ret has already played and beat both Naniwa and Tarson, so if he loses against Thorzain, either way his next opponent is someone he's already beat.
That being said, I really want either Ret or Tarson to take this. None that I'm aware of. Also can confirm that for someone to come through losers and win they will have to win 2 best of 3s. The worst rule ever invented in tournaments. Why not just tie weights around his hands and blindfold him as well and then have him win 2 best of 3s? have you ever played in a tournament yourself ? i have, and i have come to winners bracket finals many times in my life (on wc3 roc). do you know how it feels when the admin is stupid and doesn't understand this rule, and you end up losing when it's actually your first loss in the tourney, and you even knocked out the guy that just beat you earlier in the tournament ? you feel pretty much robbed. 2 bo3s is just logical, first loss to get into the LB, then it's the real bo3 final. if you lose a game/set in a tournament , it's only normal that you should be at a disadvantage, and don't come up with "you have to play so many more games". I don't know what else can I say except that I disagree entirely. The logic that someone has to start a series pretty much crippled and with 10% chance to win at best doesn't work for me at all. Why even play then? Just auto award the LB winner 2nd place and be done with it. Either knock the player out completely if he loses a series, or let him play normally. These handicap rules are just silly. How does that make any sense? Both players are playing with the same rules. Whichever one gets defeated in a bo3 twice is out of the tournament. That's why they call it double elimination, that's why there's a loser's bracket. Obviously the person who has never lost a bo3 in the winner's bracket has to lose two bo3s. I'm not saying it's not logical, I'm saying it's not right. Correct logic doesn't make up for having a boring, one-sided finals that one player simply can't and won't win unless he's 3 times better.
It is logical and it is right.
|
I'm really excited, who will win this match will be going to Blizzcon, GO RET/T-ZAIN
|
Ret vs Thorzain starting :-)
|
I love Ret's strategic thinking.
|
On August 07 2011 18:51 Kennigit wrote:
regarding rets shirt. We shipped rets shirts when he had lost a ton of weight, he put some of it back on so after some replacements he was down to only 1 that fit - which he lost between MLG and EU invitational. It will be fixed for next event.
Ship him back out to Korea. That ought to thin him up.
|
On August 07 2011 18:54 vrok wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 18:51 Kennigit wrote:
regarding rets shirt. We shipped rets shirts when he had lost a ton of weight, he put some of it back on so after some replacements he was down to only 1 that fit - which he lost between MLG and EU invitational. It will be fixed for next event. Are you forcing Ret to go on a diet?! You should!
Or the EG workout plan.
|
On August 07 2011 18:55 Talin wrote:I love Ret's strategic thinking.
Lots of drones and mutalisks!
|
|
|
On August 07 2011 18:51 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 18:49 Mairu wrote:On August 07 2011 18:46 Talin wrote:On August 07 2011 18:41 Toxi78 wrote:On August 07 2011 18:26 Talin wrote:On August 07 2011 18:13 MrBitter wrote:On August 07 2011 18:12 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:
Do they have any rules as far as players meeting twice? Ret has already played and beat both Naniwa and Tarson, so if he loses against Thorzain, either way his next opponent is someone he's already beat.
That being said, I really want either Ret or Tarson to take this. None that I'm aware of. Also can confirm that for someone to come through losers and win they will have to win 2 best of 3s. The worst rule ever invented in tournaments. Why not just tie weights around his hands and blindfold him as well and then have him win 2 best of 3s? have you ever played in a tournament yourself ? i have, and i have come to winners bracket finals many times in my life (on wc3 roc). do you know how it feels when the admin is stupid and doesn't understand this rule, and you end up losing when it's actually your first loss in the tourney, and you even knocked out the guy that just beat you earlier in the tournament ? you feel pretty much robbed. 2 bo3s is just logical, first loss to get into the LB, then it's the real bo3 final. if you lose a game/set in a tournament , it's only normal that you should be at a disadvantage, and don't come up with "you have to play so many more games". I don't know what else can I say except that I disagree entirely. The logic that someone has to start a series pretty much crippled and with 10% chance to win at best doesn't work for me at all. Why even play then? Just auto award the LB winner 2nd place and be done with it. Either knock the player out completely if he loses a series, or let him play normally. These handicap rules are just silly. How does that make any sense? Both players are playing with the same rules. Whichever one gets defeated in a bo3 twice is out of the tournament. That's why they call it double elimination, that's why there's a loser's bracket. Obviously the person who has never lost a bo3 in the winner's bracket has to lose two bo3s. I'm not saying it's not logical, I'm saying it's not right. Correct logic doesn't make up for having a boring, one-sided finals that one player simply can't and won't win unless he's 3 times better.
What? Why does double elimination = boring, one-sided finals? I'm pretty sure they have boring one-sided finals in single elimination tournaments all the time (hi gsl) and I don't know why having to win four games instead of two means you can't win unless you're three times better.
|
On August 07 2011 18:51 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 18:49 Mairu wrote:On August 07 2011 18:46 Talin wrote:On August 07 2011 18:41 Toxi78 wrote:On August 07 2011 18:26 Talin wrote:On August 07 2011 18:13 MrBitter wrote:On August 07 2011 18:12 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:
Do they have any rules as far as players meeting twice? Ret has already played and beat both Naniwa and Tarson, so if he loses against Thorzain, either way his next opponent is someone he's already beat.
That being said, I really want either Ret or Tarson to take this. None that I'm aware of. Also can confirm that for someone to come through losers and win they will have to win 2 best of 3s. The worst rule ever invented in tournaments. Why not just tie weights around his hands and blindfold him as well and then have him win 2 best of 3s? have you ever played in a tournament yourself ? i have, and i have come to winners bracket finals many times in my life (on wc3 roc). do you know how it feels when the admin is stupid and doesn't understand this rule, and you end up losing when it's actually your first loss in the tourney, and you even knocked out the guy that just beat you earlier in the tournament ? you feel pretty much robbed. 2 bo3s is just logical, first loss to get into the LB, then it's the real bo3 final. if you lose a game/set in a tournament , it's only normal that you should be at a disadvantage, and don't come up with "you have to play so many more games". I don't know what else can I say except that I disagree entirely. The logic that someone has to start a series pretty much crippled and with 10% chance to win at best doesn't work for me at all. Why even play then? Just auto award the LB winner 2nd place and be done with it. Either knock the player out completely if he loses a series, or let him play normally. These handicap rules are just silly. How does that make any sense? Both players are playing with the same rules. Whichever one gets defeated in a bo3 twice is out of the tournament. That's why they call it double elimination, that's why there's a loser's bracket. Obviously the person who has never lost a bo3 in the winner's bracket has to lose two bo3s. I'm not saying it's not logical, I'm saying it's not right. Correct logic doesn't make up for having a boring, one-sided finals that one player simply can't and won't win unless he's 3 times better.
That's just silly. What exactly is so impossible about winning two bo3? How is it one sided? I get it with extended series but not this format.
|
On August 07 2011 18:43 ogawdlulz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 18:41 Toxi78 wrote:On August 07 2011 18:26 Talin wrote:On August 07 2011 18:13 MrBitter wrote:On August 07 2011 18:12 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:
Do they have any rules as far as players meeting twice? Ret has already played and beat both Naniwa and Tarson, so if he loses against Thorzain, either way his next opponent is someone he's already beat.
That being said, I really want either Ret or Tarson to take this. None that I'm aware of. Also can confirm that for someone to come through losers and win they will have to win 2 best of 3s. The worst rule ever invented in tournaments. Why not just tie weights around his hands and blindfold him as well and then have him win 2 best of 3s? have you ever played in a tournament yourself ? i have, and i have come to winners bracket finals many times in my life (on wc3 roc). do you know how it feels when the admin is stupid and doesn't understand this rule, and you end up losing when it's actually your first loss in the tourney, and you even knocked out the guy that just beat you earlier in the tournament ? you feel pretty much robbed. 2 bo3s is just logical, first loss to get into the LB, then it's the real bo3 final. if you lose a game/set in a tournament , it's only normal that you should be at a disadvantage, and don't come up with "you have to play so many more games". The loser bracket players already plays an extra bo3 he has to win so he's making up his loss with that already. No need to punish him twice.
?
the only tournament in which someone is punished twice is the MLG, which has the most stupid set of rules i have personally seen / experienced in tournaments : the extended series, which is a joke. if you meet a player in the LB that beat you before, he has an advantage over you, when you are in reality both equal regarding the tournament at this stage, since you both in the WB at spùe point and then meet in the LB.
double elimination is simple, the finals are maybe not entertaining, i agree, but this is why it's so important to be the winners bracket's winner..
|
On August 07 2011 18:51 Kennigit wrote:
regarding rets shirt. We shipped rets shirts when he had lost a ton of weight, he put some of it back on so after some replacements he was down to only 1 that fit - which he lost between MLG and EU invitational. It will be fixed for next event.
 that's unfortunate, hope Ret is keeping healthy even if he has found his in-game form again.
|
TARSON HOLDS !!!!!
Oh wait, too early.
GL Ret !
|
6000 spectators! :O WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW
|
On August 07 2011 18:56 Mairu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 18:51 Talin wrote:On August 07 2011 18:49 Mairu wrote:On August 07 2011 18:46 Talin wrote:On August 07 2011 18:41 Toxi78 wrote:On August 07 2011 18:26 Talin wrote:On August 07 2011 18:13 MrBitter wrote:On August 07 2011 18:12 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:
Do they have any rules as far as players meeting twice? Ret has already played and beat both Naniwa and Tarson, so if he loses against Thorzain, either way his next opponent is someone he's already beat.
That being said, I really want either Ret or Tarson to take this. None that I'm aware of. Also can confirm that for someone to come through losers and win they will have to win 2 best of 3s. The worst rule ever invented in tournaments. Why not just tie weights around his hands and blindfold him as well and then have him win 2 best of 3s? have you ever played in a tournament yourself ? i have, and i have come to winners bracket finals many times in my life (on wc3 roc). do you know how it feels when the admin is stupid and doesn't understand this rule, and you end up losing when it's actually your first loss in the tourney, and you even knocked out the guy that just beat you earlier in the tournament ? you feel pretty much robbed. 2 bo3s is just logical, first loss to get into the LB, then it's the real bo3 final. if you lose a game/set in a tournament , it's only normal that you should be at a disadvantage, and don't come up with "you have to play so many more games". I don't know what else can I say except that I disagree entirely. The logic that someone has to start a series pretty much crippled and with 10% chance to win at best doesn't work for me at all. Why even play then? Just auto award the LB winner 2nd place and be done with it. Either knock the player out completely if he loses a series, or let him play normally. These handicap rules are just silly. How does that make any sense? Both players are playing with the same rules. Whichever one gets defeated in a bo3 twice is out of the tournament. That's why they call it double elimination, that's why there's a loser's bracket. Obviously the person who has never lost a bo3 in the winner's bracket has to lose two bo3s. I'm not saying it's not logical, I'm saying it's not right. Correct logic doesn't make up for having a boring, one-sided finals that one player simply can't and won't win unless he's 3 times better. What? Why does double elimination = boring, one-sided finals? I'm pretty sure they have boring one-sided finals in single elimination tournaments all the time (hi gsl) and I don't know why having to win four games instead of two means you can't win unless you're three times better.
Because one player has to win two games and the other has to win four, as opposed to both finalists having to win the same number of games? How is it even possible you don't see that as one sided and boring? -_-
Anyway, we won't agree so I'm just dropping it and watching Ret demolish his way to the win anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
