EPTTyler got screwed with the game resets and such, and that Tylers 0-2 vs painuser could've gone much differently without the admin fuckups
MLG extended Series Poll - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Chriamon
United States886 Posts
and the bitching about the extended series rule is really misplaced bitching. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
PainUser lost one bo3 and started 2-0 the extended match vs Tyler who also lost one bo3 Jinro DIDNT lose one bo3 and starts 2-1 vs TT1 who has lost a bo3. IE PainUser had the right to lose one more series just cause he beat in WB the guy he met later in LB. Whereas if Jinro loses THIS extended series, he's flat out. | ||
|
Bear4188
United States1797 Posts
| ||
|
green.at
Austria1459 Posts
| ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
paraphrasing tappi: The overarching aim of the tournament is to have the best players duke it out in the final. Double elimination is an attempt to facilitate that by giving people a second chance when they get a little unlucky, but it's imperfect. When you get a rematch, double elimination should be ignored, because what really matters is seeing who the better player is overall, and at that point, the best way to do that is to just play a longer series and see who comes out on top. In the grand final, then, a single extended series is still the best option, and we should just ignore double elim rules, because they're not serving any purpose at that point. Just to give the other side its due. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:27 green.at wrote: many tournaments use a "you have to win 2 bo3's if you come from the lower bracket" so i say this extended series is better. This is not the problem. Many tournaments use that for GRAND FINALS and it's ok, whether it's one or the other solution. What's in discussion is the extended rule for a regular Loser Bracket game. | ||
|
GogoKodo
Canada1785 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:27 Chriamon wrote: I don't think this rule was the controversy, the whole thing was, + Show Spoiler + Tyler got screwed with the game resets and such, and that Tylers 0-2 vs painuser could've gone much differently without the admin fuckups There really is a lot of people complaining about the extended series without the screwup in Tyler's match. There was a big thread about this for the last MLG as well. | ||
|
theqat
United States2856 Posts
| ||
|
OneRedBeard
Germany313 Posts
Logical nonsense. | ||
|
Zaq343
United States3 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:23 btlyger wrote: The fact that there is a winners and losers bracket gives enough advantage to the winner already. That enough is the crucial part. MLG, at least currently, doesn't agree. Here's a question that maybe someone can answer. How does the transfer down to the LB happen? Is the whole bracket laid out ahead of time, or do seeds come into play in placing players into a given LB round? | ||
|
Deleted User 47542
1484 Posts
In other rounds, it's stupid and unfair imo. | ||
|
TrevorJK
United States77 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:27 Nouar wrote: It is NOT fair, take this example : PainUser lost one bo3 and started 2-0 the extended match vs Tyler who also lost one bo3 Jinro DIDNT lose one bo3 and starts 2-1 vs TT1 who has lost a bo3. IE PainUser had the right to lose one more series just cause he beat in WB the guy he met later in LB. Whereas if Jinro loses THIS extended series, he's flat out. In that case there would be one extended series and then one bo3 for these grand finals | ||
|
Bear4188
United States1797 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:28 Pyrthas wrote: I don't agree with the extended series, but here's the best explanation I've heard. I'll quote my OP: Just to give the other side its due. Precisely, semantics. So, MLG, what do you want? The "best" players or a double elimination tournament? If they want the former they should probably do a single or double elimination Bo5 tournament, not this extended series junk. | ||
|
Merlinius
62 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:10 Zaq343 wrote: It seems pretty clear that it's something that's not popular here at least. What I think it's designed to avoid is a situation where a player is eliminated by a player they have a winning record against. For example, 2-0 the first time, followed by a 1-2 LB series results in 3-2 but elimination. That'd be pretty lame. exactly. and that's why i like the rule. a player should not be elminated by someone he has defeated more often than not during the entire tournament. | ||
|
AyJay
1515 Posts
| ||
|
maellestrom
United States194 Posts
The rule was only put in place 4 times in the entire tournament guys... 4 matches out of 108 in the losers bracket. Pretty sure everyone is making an necessarily big deal about this. | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
This has nothing to do with semantics, and everything to do with what you think the best way to determine the winner of the tournament is. That's something people can have a substantive disagreement about. It doesn't have to be merely a disagreement about meaning, which is what it would be if it were just semantics. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:29 Titan48 wrote: In that case there would be one extended series and then one bo3 for these grand finals Well this is what happens right now and there's no additionnal bo3 for the grand finals. | ||
|
TrevorJK
United States77 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:31 AyJay wrote: Absolutely not. I don't see the point of it... If player get's knocked down to the losers bracket he has to fight twice as many players than in winners bracket and if he meets someone who knocked him out that guy gets advantage??? My mind is about to explode because I don't know how fair can this rule be... I don't even know how this rule can work even in Halo. Please someone explain >_< That guy guys the advantage because he already 2-0'd you. Without the extended series you would have situations where a player goes 2-3 vs an opponent advances instead of the player with 3 wins | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On November 08 2010 06:31 Merlinius wrote: exactly. and that's why i like the rule. a player should not be elminated by someone he has defeated more often than not during the entire tournament. As I explain over here (I know I keep linking that, but it's just because I don't want to rehash the same junk in this thread), MLG is not consistent on this. When the grand final is not a rematch, it's possible for the LB player to go 3-2 against the WB player but still lose the tournament. | ||
| ||
