[NASTL] EG vs FXO - Page 12

On January 27 2012 18:41 Mikau wrote:
A bo7 requires you to have 7 players (or 6+ ace). That's what he was saying. Nobody said bo7 means you have to win 7 games.

On January 27 2012 14:02 storm44 wrote:


not really surprised since they did this all the time in regular season with really hyped up matches saved last and don't announce anything even though the game wasn't played so they would keep viewers. really scumbag thing to do

On January 28 2012 02:17 CursedFeanor wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
Learn to count... BO7 = first team to 4 wins = 4 players per team is necessary. Either your 4 players loose and you loose the match or 1 to 4 of your guys separate wins to reach 4 wins and win the match.

On January 28 2012 02:17 CursedFeanor wrote:


Learn to count... BO7 = first team to 4 wins = 4 players per team is necessary. Either your 4 players loose and you loose the match or 1 to 4 of your guys separate wins to reach 4 wins and win the match.

On January 27 2012 18:41 Mikau wrote:
A bo7 requires you to have 7 players (or 6+ ace). That's what he was saying. Nobody said bo7 means you have to win 7 games.

On January 28 2012 03:19 Monsen wrote:
Log on stream, hear Gretorp stammer nonsensical bs, log off.

On January 27 2012 17:45 s4life wrote:


proleague had also a winners league, which imho was the best part. In case of BW at least, coaches would send the same races according to the map due to perceived biases.. not sure if this happens in SC2 as well; if so, that would explain the propensity to having mirror matches in this format. Truly if a team doesn't have enough players then it shouldn't be in the tourney in the first place, there are plenty of teams that could fill in.

Finally, a Bo7 only requires FOUR players to win, not SEVEN. I think a Bo9 -- like IPTL -- is definitely better than this.

On January 27 2012 22:18 cyclone25 wrote:


1) If this was streamed live we could have seen the game.

2) I doubt that IdrA's computer didn't saved the replay. This isn't supposed to happen when your opponent disconnects from the game. NASL should have had a referee in that match for this reason. Also they needed a referee to check if Leenock's advantage was big enough to award him a win.

On January 27 2012 19:32 Veriol wrote:
4 seperate BO1s thats the most retarded format there can be .. I can understant BO7 last man standing style even though its still BO1 but this is just stupid so much luck invovled.

On January 28 2012 02:17 CursedFeanor wrote:


Learn to count... BO7 = first team to 4 wins = 4 players per team is necessary. Either your 4 players loose and you loose the match or 1 to 4 of your guys separate wins to reach 4 wins and win the match.

On January 28 2012 05:15 The Final Boss wrote:

Nobody needed to determine if the advantage was big enough to award the win. Read what they wrote, it wasn't until after the game that the computer crashed. IdrA lost the game, then Leenock's computer crashed. At the same time, there should be somebody observing the game to get the replay and make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen, but at the end of the day I wouldn't blame NASL for this, it's just an accident.



Why is everybody bashing on this format? I think I would like it more if it was a seven Bo1s with an ace match, but honestly this format is way more focused on the team. This format makes it easier for a "weak" player to perform the best he's ever done and have a huge impact. Bo7 would be better, but this format is great. And I really fail to see how there is more luck in this than an all-kill format tournament.


Technically you could play in that format with 4 players but if any of them lost then you'd lose the match because you would forfeit three games. I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble understanding that, good God.

On January 28 2012 05:34 Hardigan wrote:

the problem with the format is, that it is a Bo1 (imo). if there would be 4 sets with Bo3, fine with me. But 4 * Bo1??? It just doesn't really say much when it is a Bo1. If player A is beating player B in a Bo1, will i get the feelling that Player A (Team A) is a better player (Team)/ played better? No. Bo3 is not much better, but at least there exist a feelling for me that player A really defeated Player B.

On January 28 2012 05:15 The Final Boss wrote:

Technically you could play in that format with 4 players but if any of them lost then you'd lose the match because you would forfeit three games. I don't understand why so many people have so much trouble understanding that, good God.

On January 28 2012 05:34 Hardigan wrote:
the problem with the format is, that it is a Bo1 (imo). if there would be 4 sets with Bo3, fine with me. But 4 * Bo1??? It just doesn't really say much when it is a Bo1. If player A is beating player B in a Bo1, will i get the feelling that Player A (Team A) is a better player (Team)/ played better? No. Bo3 is not much better, but at least there exist a feelling for me that player A really defeated Player B.