|
On June 07 2011 10:29 TheRealNidhogg wrote:
I dont like the extended series rule however. i think the semifinal rounds should be a fest of 5, and the finals a best of 7. would make the last matches that much more intense imo
It will never be a Bo5 or Bo7 until the extended series is eliminated because if for w/e reason they met again then a Bo5 would turn into a Bo9 and a Bo7 would turn into a Bo11. Extended series has done more damage to the Final matches of MLG than anyone could of thought of when they first brought this crap up.
Watching half of a series in the Semi's and Final's is the most anti-climactic thing in the world. There is absolutely no sense of momentum and before you can get into the series it's freaking over. It's just really sad.
|
A lot of people don't seem to realize that, if you lose in the winner's bracket/pool play, you already lost a Bo3 and once you're down in the loser's bracket you play Bo3s unless you get matched with the guy who beat you, he gets more leeway against you.
I don't understand how people can think its fair. Why should the person get more leeway if he already lost in the winner's bracket, the previous encounter should be ignored as if they had not played yet, that way both contestant are on equal footing.
PS: In the finals, if the guy from the winner's bracket loses a Bo3, is it over or does he gets to play an extended series? >.> (Or worse yet, does he gets to play an extended series starting at 2-0, worse for the guy from loser's bracket, that is.)
|
On June 07 2011 10:32 Count9 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 10:18 arQ wrote:On June 07 2011 09:39 Chocobo wrote:On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Why does every single person who defends extended series keep repeating this one point? Why do you ignore the mountain of evidence that regular double elimination is better and fairer? Why do you ignore all of the problems that extended series introduces? I want an extended-series defender to answer some of these questions. 1) Idra defeated MC, his reward was a shorter path to reach the finals, and he got to travel that path with a lifeline (being able to lose a matchup but still be in the tournament). He won only 1 more matchup, then lost to MMA. MC had to defeat four straight opponents to reach the same point as Idra, and couldn't have any losses along the way. Since the first match, MC had to win 8 games to reach this point and Idra only had to win 2. Both MC and Idra have lost to one other player in the tournament. MC has already been at a great disadvantage... how in the world is it fair to require him to win 4-1 or 4-0 when he's already been punished hard for his loss? 2) Thorzain and Ret have been having equal performances. Both did well at first, then got sent to the losers bracket. Both go 2-1 in their next losers bracket matchup. Ret advances, but Thorzain does not advance because he was unlucky enough to have run into a rematch in the bracket. Why should pure luck in the brackets determine who advances and who is eliminated? 3) Naniwa and Idra have been having equal performances. Both went far into the winners bracket, then lost in the semifinals. Idra's next match is a bo7 with a 2-0 lead, Naniwa's next match is a bo3 with a 0-0 start. Why should identically performing players be treated differently due to luck? 4) In the losers bracket finals was Losira vs MC. If one player advances, then MMA begins the finals with a huge advantage. If the other player advances, MMA has no advantage. Why should the winners bracket champion randomly have or not have an advantage in the finals? 5) Losira advanced to the winners bracket finals without taking a loss, while MC took early losses and had to fight his way back up to contention. But somehow if Losira advances to the grand finals he deserves to have a huge disadvantage... and if MC advances he does not have a disadvantage? What kind of sense does that make? 6) Two-game grand finals are stupid. Agree or disagree? -------------- I challenge anyone who thinks that extended series is a good thing to answer these questions, and explain to me how introducing all of these large problems is worth it in order to solve a small problem that no one ever complained about in the first place. Very well put, sir. These 6 points are what makes the extended series horrible, and damaging to the overall experience of the MLG events. As for your challenge, I would love to extend it to MLG + staff as well. MMA would have an advantage vs. MC, it would be 2 bo3's I believe for MC to win, so that point's not valid.
That argument is regarding double vs single elimination format, not extended series. You are free to address the 6 points above though.
|
Without extended series you could have players go 3-2 against an opponent and still be knocked out while the opponent stays by beating them 2-0 and then losing 1-2. With extended series it ensures that you either have a winning record or no record against everyone in the tournament if you win. It means every round counts and you cant just slip through groups and then get hot and win a few games in a row.
|
On June 07 2011 11:00 arQ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 10:32 Count9 wrote:On June 07 2011 10:18 arQ wrote:On June 07 2011 09:39 Chocobo wrote:On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Why does every single person who defends extended series keep repeating this one point? Why do you ignore the mountain of evidence that regular double elimination is better and fairer? Why do you ignore all of the problems that extended series introduces? I want an extended-series defender to answer some of these questions. 1) Idra defeated MC, his reward was a shorter path to reach the finals, and he got to travel that path with a lifeline (being able to lose a matchup but still be in the tournament). He won only 1 more matchup, then lost to MMA. MC had to defeat four straight opponents to reach the same point as Idra, and couldn't have any losses along the way. Since the first match, MC had to win 8 games to reach this point and Idra only had to win 2. Both MC and Idra have lost to one other player in the tournament. MC has already been at a great disadvantage... how in the world is it fair to require him to win 4-1 or 4-0 when he's already been punished hard for his loss? 2) Thorzain and Ret have been having equal performances. Both did well at first, then got sent to the losers bracket. Both go 2-1 in their next losers bracket matchup. Ret advances, but Thorzain does not advance because he was unlucky enough to have run into a rematch in the bracket. Why should pure luck in the brackets determine who advances and who is eliminated? 3) Naniwa and Idra have been having equal performances. Both went far into the winners bracket, then lost in the semifinals. Idra's next match is a bo7 with a 2-0 lead, Naniwa's next match is a bo3 with a 0-0 start. Why should identically performing players be treated differently due to luck? 4) In the losers bracket finals was Losira vs MC. If one player advances, then MMA begins the finals with a huge advantage. If the other player advances, MMA has no advantage. Why should the winners bracket champion randomly have or not have an advantage in the finals? 5) Losira advanced to the winners bracket finals without taking a loss, while MC took early losses and had to fight his way back up to contention. But somehow if Losira advances to the grand finals he deserves to have a huge disadvantage... and if MC advances he does not have a disadvantage? What kind of sense does that make? 6) Two-game grand finals are stupid. Agree or disagree? -------------- I challenge anyone who thinks that extended series is a good thing to answer these questions, and explain to me how introducing all of these large problems is worth it in order to solve a small problem that no one ever complained about in the first place. Very well put, sir. These 6 points are what makes the extended series horrible, and damaging to the overall experience of the MLG events. As for your challenge, I would love to extend it to MLG + staff as well. MMA would have an advantage vs. MC, it would be 2 bo3's I believe for MC to win, so that point's not valid. That argument is regarding double vs single elimination format, not extended series. You are free to address the 6 points above though.
The first five points are spot on. Addressing the sixth point: they are stupid but that could have been the case regardless of extended series or not since in both cases MMA would have needed to win 2 games to take the tournament.
|
I think MC v IdrA shows that the extended series works, it gave idra the advantage as he was 2-0 up after pool play, but MC proved to be the better player for the tourny, and ended up winning 4-2
|
On June 07 2011 10:58 2WeaK wrote:
A lot of people don't seem to realize that, if you lose in the winner's bracket/pool play, you already lost a Bo3 and once you're down in the loser's bracket you play Bo3s unless you get matched with the guy who beat you, he gets more leeway against you.
I don't understand how people can think its fair. Why should the person get more leeway if he already lost in the winner's bracket, the previous encounter should be ignored as if they had not played yet, that way both contestant are on equal footing.
PS: In the finals, if the guy from the winner's bracket loses a Bo3, is it over or does he gets to play an extended series? >.> (Or worse yet, does he gets to play an extended series starting at 2-0, worse for the guy from loser's bracket, that is.)
On the other hand, it's also unfair to be eliminated by a guy you went 2-3 against in the tournament. You say it's "obviously unfair" that a person who previously beat you should get leeway against you, but there isn't really any good reason for why he shouldn't--or, conversely, there isn't a strong reason for why he should. There's no clearcut answer, but MLG believes that it's more important to ensure the stronger player has a better chance of eliminating the weaker one by letting a player who had an advantage earlier retain it.
1) Idra defeated MC, his reward was a shorter path to reach the finals, and he got to travel that path with a lifeline (being able to lose a matchup but still be in the tournament). He won only 1 more matchup, then lost to MMA.
MC had to defeat four straight opponents to reach the same point as Idra, and couldn't have any losses along the way. Since the first match, MC had to win 8 games to reach this point and Idra only had to win 2. Both MC and Idra have lost to one other player in the tournament. MC has already been at a great disadvantage... how in the world is it fair to require him to win 4-1 or 4-0 when he's already been punished hard for his loss?
2) Thorzain and Ret have been having equal performances. Both did well at first, then got sent to the losers bracket. Both go 2-1 in their next losers bracket matchup. Ret advances, but Thorzain does not advance because he was unlucky enough to have run into a rematch in the bracket.
Why should pure luck in the brackets determine who advances and who is eliminated?
3) Naniwa and Idra have been having equal performances. Both went far into the winners bracket, then lost in the semifinals. Idra's next match is a bo7 with a 2-0 lead, Naniwa's next match is a bo3 with a 0-0 start. Why should identically performing players be treated differently due to luck?
4) In the losers bracket finals was Losira vs MC. If one player advances, then MMA begins the finals with a huge advantage. If the other player advances, MMA has no advantage. Why should the winners bracket champion randomly have or not have an advantage in the finals?
5) Losira advanced to the winners bracket finals without taking a loss, while MC took early losses and had to fight his way back up to contention. But somehow if Losira advances to the grand finals he deserves to have a huge disadvantage... and if MC advances he does not have a disadvantage? What kind of sense does that make?
6) Two-game grand finals are stupid. Agree or disagree?
1. That's a problem with the pool play system, not extended series. MC's "punishment" came from it.
2. Err...it's a bracket. Of course there's luck. Some opponents are better than others, some opponents have previously defeated you and get rewarded for that.
3. Two players are 3-0 in pool play. One has to simply defeat Fenix to win his group, the other has to consecutively defeat MMA and July. I'm talking, of course, about Nani and Sheth--the point is, the luck is there regardless. In the interests of fairness to players who already demonstrated their superiority, though, a little extra bracket luck doesn't really hurt.
4. If MC advances, he has to win two BO3's to take the tournament (Last time this happened was Select vs. IdrA at DC, but I think it's the same system.)
5. Same question again...
6. A guy winning a finals against a guy he has a losing record against in the tournament is stupid. Agree or disagree?
|
On June 07 2011 11:09 imareaver3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 10:58 2WeaK wrote:
A lot of people don't seem to realize that, if you lose in the winner's bracket/pool play, you already lost a Bo3 and once you're down in the loser's bracket you play Bo3s unless you get matched with the guy who beat you, he gets more leeway against you.
I don't understand how people can think its fair. Why should the person get more leeway if he already lost in the winner's bracket, the previous encounter should be ignored as if they had not played yet, that way both contestant are on equal footing.
PS: In the finals, if the guy from the winner's bracket loses a Bo3, is it over or does he gets to play an extended series? >.> (Or worse yet, does he gets to play an extended series starting at 2-0, worse for the guy from loser's bracket, that is.) On the other hand, it's also unfair to be eliminated by a guy you went 2-3 against in the tournament. You say it's "obviously unfair" that a person who previously beat you should get leeway against you, but there isn't really any good reason for why he shouldn't--or, conversely, there isn't a strong reason for why he should. There's no clearcut answer, but MLG believes that it's more important to ensure the stronger player has a better chance of eliminating the weaker one by letting a player who had an advantage earlier retain it.
On June 07 2011 11:04 ak1knight wrote:
Without extended series you could have players go 3-2 against an opponent and still be knocked out while the opponent stays by beating them 2-0 and then losing 1-2. With extended series it ensures that you either have a winning record or no record against everyone in the tournament if you win. It means every round counts and you cant just slip through groups and then get hot and win a few games in a row.
It can still be fair advancing 2-3. Because it is never literally just 2-3. It is in actuality something like 2-0 between player A and B, then 2-0 between player B and C, while A losing 2-0 to C, then more games in between, then rematch into 2-1 between A and B, etc etc. So you can't say just because A and B has a total of 2-3, that B doesn't deserve to advance.
|
it kind of just moves the inevitable along quicker. i don't mind it at all, but probably more what the actually players think. didn't help idra either way :/
|
single elimination makes games so much more exciting.
iunno but if tsl3 finals was naniwa/thorzain coming from losers then i wouldn't be as hyped. yeah it's awesome if the guy comes back, but if you have the thought of "he has an advantage already" then it's less entertaining. you can say a team is gonna win in the nfl, but they don't have a solid advantage other than home field.
|
On June 07 2011 11:08 L3g3nd_ wrote:
I think MC v IdrA shows that the extended series works, it gave idra the advantage as he was 2-0 up after pool play, but MC proved to be the better player for the tourny, and ended up winning 4-2
Well actually Idra just threw away 2-3 games and didn't play at all how he played before. But regardless, one example doesn't show anything about the extended series rule.
|
I don't think many people who actually play in mlg like the extended series rule. Even from the fan perspective I think most people don't like it.
|
I think alot of people ignore that maps cannot be reused in an extended series. This kind of reduces some of the advantages that a winning player may have had so its not as one sided as people make it out to be.
If you look in tlpd there are alot of maps in the pool that have 60pc and even 35 pc winrates in matchups so it forces players to know more maps because they will be better equipped for an extended series.
Whereas a repeat matchup in a double elim bracket will usually have the same maps unless players can eliminate maps which is the opposite of extended series which forces maps to be played.
I prefer the latter but I understand if some people only want to play 3/7 maps in the pool or whatever.
Its better than having players counterpicking maps and never expanding the map pool. Its good to see that the koreans were forced to play testbug when they went into an extended series. It helps the map develop and helps the players to develop by making them prepare more maps.
|
On June 07 2011 11:08 L3g3nd_ wrote:
I think MC v IdrA shows that the extended series works, it gave idra the advantage as he was 2-0 up after pool play, but MC proved to be the better player for the tourny, and ended up winning 4-2
Sorry but that dosent make sense. Your saying the extended series works because MC the better player had to win more games? o.O Idra had also lost to MMA were MC havent lost to anyone els so in the end idra can still be in the tournemant after loseing 2xbo3 were MC would be out just because his being unlucky to meet a guy you already played.
|
On June 07 2011 11:17 shawster wrote:
single elimination makes games so much more exciting.
iunno but if tsl3 finals was naniwa/thorzain coming from losers then i wouldn't be as hyped. yeah it's awesome if the guy comes back, but if you have the thought of "he has an advantage already" then it's less entertaining. you can say a team is gonna win in the nfl, but they don't have a solid advantage other than home field.
I agree, MLG's system is kind of cool in that I love pool play, but single elim is so much easier to follow and less convoluted. Plus I hate that the finals are subject to one player being already ahead, that just doesn't seem epic.
The finals should be a two players on a level playing field duking it out for winner takes all, the extended series means its just kind of seems like a formality, not an actual finals, I know that isn't true but thats the vibe it gives me.
|
On June 07 2011 11:00 arQ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2011 10:32 Count9 wrote:On June 07 2011 10:18 arQ wrote:On June 07 2011 09:39 Chocobo wrote:On June 07 2011 09:11 Jerubaal wrote:On June 07 2011 09:04 Fubi wrote:On June 07 2011 08:32 Jerubaal wrote:
EDIT: Arguments against this invariably bring up Player X, Y, Z scenarios. The purpose of the tournament is not to find the best player (as that is impossible); the purpose is to find out who is playing the best that day, in that circumstance. Taking this principle, it should be evident that it's easier (read: better) to compare players A and B by themselves than to compare A, B, C, D, E.....Z. (Players A and B are in the finals, but really player C is the best because the margin with which he lost to player D, who beat player A, is smaller than the margin player B lost player G....). And, again, taking this principle that we are trying to isolate a measurable scenario instead of some wide sweeping conclusion, it should be obvious that it's better to only use a game as a standard and not series. Thus we have an extended series where the players are judge by which games they win, not by which series they win. 1) Your first point actually contradicts the extended series principal. If they are just trying to find the one "playing the best that day, in that circumstance", then that is more of a reason to have an equal start at that point and circumstance. MC was forced to continue his 0-2 that he lost to Idra from two days ago when he had very little sleep. 2) It isn't making random sweeping conclusion without the extended series. The brackets itself does the most logical conclusion. The measurement of the tournament should be the best player is the one that is last to lose twice. It is as simple as that, and that is the whole point of double elimination. By meeting again in the loser's bracket, that means both players have lost once. They are EQUAL from the tournament's point of view. So therefore they should simply duke it out to see who will be the first to lose his second time. I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point and has been my main criticism with the arguments against extended series. My principal is that the criteria for winning should be as narrow as possible to prevent the system from affecting the outcome ( I can hear you saying that extended series does this, but as you will see...). With extended series, the person who wins the most games wins. Without, the person who wins the right games in the right order wins. Why does every single person who defends extended series keep repeating this one point? Why do you ignore the mountain of evidence that regular double elimination is better and fairer? Why do you ignore all of the problems that extended series introduces? I want an extended-series defender to answer some of these questions. 1) Idra defeated MC, his reward was a shorter path to reach the finals, and he got to travel that path with a lifeline (being able to lose a matchup but still be in the tournament). He won only 1 more matchup, then lost to MMA. MC had to defeat four straight opponents to reach the same point as Idra, and couldn't have any losses along the way. Since the first match, MC had to win 8 games to reach this point and Idra only had to win 2. Both MC and Idra have lost to one other player in the tournament. MC has already been at a great disadvantage... how in the world is it fair to require him to win 4-1 or 4-0 when he's already been punished hard for his loss? 2) Thorzain and Ret have been having equal performances. Both did well at first, then got sent to the losers bracket. Both go 2-1 in their next losers bracket matchup. Ret advances, but Thorzain does not advance because he was unlucky enough to have run into a rematch in the bracket. Why should pure luck in the brackets determine who advances and who is eliminated? 3) Naniwa and Idra have been having equal performances. Both went far into the winners bracket, then lost in the semifinals. Idra's next match is a bo7 with a 2-0 lead, Naniwa's next match is a bo3 with a 0-0 start. Why should identically performing players be treated differently due to luck? 4) In the losers bracket finals was Losira vs MC. If one player advances, then MMA begins the finals with a huge advantage. If the other player advances, MMA has no advantage. Why should the winners bracket champion randomly have or not have an advantage in the finals? 5) Losira advanced to the winners bracket finals without taking a loss, while MC took early losses and had to fight his way back up to contention. But somehow if Losira advances to the grand finals he deserves to have a huge disadvantage... and if MC advances he does not have a disadvantage? What kind of sense does that make? 6) Two-game grand finals are stupid. Agree or disagree? -------------- I challenge anyone who thinks that extended series is a good thing to answer these questions, and explain to me how introducing all of these large problems is worth it in order to solve a small problem that no one ever complained about in the first place. Very well put, sir. These 6 points are what makes the extended series horrible, and damaging to the overall experience of the MLG events. As for your challenge, I would love to extend it to MLG + staff as well. MMA would have an advantage vs. MC, it would be 2 bo3's I believe for MC to win, so that point's not valid. That argument is regarding double vs single elimination format, not extended series. You are free to address the 6 points above though.
No... he's right, he was addressing point 4, which was wrong. MMA was going to have an advantage regardless of whether MC or Losira advanced. The poster insinuates he would only have an advantage if Losira advanced.
On June 07 2011 11:09 imareaver3 wrote:
6. A guy winning a finals against a guy he has a losing record against in the tournament is stupid. Agree or disagree?
Disagree 100%. It's not stupid at all, as it's a double elimination system which is what would cause it. It would be stupid in a single elimination tournament, I have absolutely NO issue whatsoever with it in a double elimination setup. Because the guy winning the finals was only eliminated once, while the guy losing (even if he originally won vs him before) still lost twice.
|
Given the way the tournament is set up, where you have a fair chance of meeting someone you've played before, I'm totally okay with the extended series rule. Being eliminated by someone that you have a winning record against seems ridiculous. If you don't want to be at a disadvantage, then don't lose. I don't see anything wrong with giving an advantage to a winner -- all tournaments do that in some way, so it's just a matter of degree here, which is highly debatable.
The whole problem with this discussion, though, is that it's a question of what people think is fair, which is always going to be objective. My opinion is that it's fair. Lots of people disagree. More importantly, though, MLG thinks it's fair, and they're not likely to change it as long as they keep the overall tournament format.
|
I kind of am not too sure how I feel about it too be honest, but I voted that it's fair to the players.
I mean honestly if you play once before, and you beat the other player, haven't you earned an advantage if you must face each other again? I think yes.
|
I don't like the extended series rule in all cases with the exception of the finals. Unless someone can point out a way that it's fair for the person who hasn't lost yet then I don't see a fix (not being sarcastic, I actually can't see a way to make it fair to the person who hasn't lost aside from extended series)
|
On June 07 2011 13:14 Scrandom wrote:
I don't like the extended series rule in all cases with the exception of the finals. Unless someone can point out a way that it's fair for the person who hasn't lost yet then I don't see a fix (not being sarcastic, I actually can't see a way to make it fair to the person who hasn't lost aside from extended series)
Uh, you just have it normal double elimination style without the extended series..? Aka, MMA vs Losira Bo5. If MMA wins, he's champion. If Losira, they play another Bo3 or Bo5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
