|
On July 31 2011 23:04 Pengu wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 31 2011 22:49 shockaslim wrote:I bet you are also a fan of ToD. There is no fathomable reason for someone to think that extended series is a good idea. There is ? You get something for a win right ? If there was no lower bracket the other player would be out of the whole thing, because they have the lower bracket it gives people a chance to make a mistake. If someone wins 3 games vs someone else's two games, how could it be possible for the person that won less games to actually stay in the tournament. MLG runs the tournament how they wish personally i like the idea as you gain an advantage for your previous effort and win.
If this was say, TSL TOD would never have to play the same person again as he would be out with 2-0
ToD's reward was that he got to start further up in the Losers bracket. He shouldn't get an extra bonus because he just happened to face the same person again in Losers.
Also, what does double elimination have to do with extended series?
|
From what I see in these discussions, most people are against extended seroes, and most people who aren't against it don't completely understand extended series.
The way I see it in a double elimination tournament, you should be out if you lose a fair BoX in the losers bracket. That means every game is a BoX, that starts at 0-0 and, in the final, the player from the winners bracket only has to win 1 BoX, while the losers bracket player has to win 2. This way the double elim. format is kept consistant.
I don't understand why 1 LB player has an advantage over another, aside from being seeded at a higher round of the LB. They both lost a game to be put into the bracket, and the player that lost last time had to play more games to reach the stage. If 2 players are playing eachother they are at the same stage in the tournament and are equals, no matter what happened earlier in the tournament.
|
hard to take the MLG seriously with rules like this. Terrible. I hope they change it.
|
The punishment for getting knocked down to the lb is having to play more games. Starting 0-2 down in the final sucks and makes for a worse spectator experience.
|
It's harsh but fair. Why should someone advance past you when you've beat them 3 times and they've only beat you twice?
|
Clearly don't like that system at all
|
I really don't like it for the finals. That was a potentially EXTREMELY epic series, ruined by extended series. Sure, it's fair, but it decreases from the MLG experience.
|
Their tourney - their rules.
I don't understand why there's so much fuss about it ? There are rules in other sports which people don't like, life for example the "Away goal" in European Soccer tournaments. The fact that in Snooker you can get called back to the table to play the same shot after a Foul and a Miss, even thou you obviously missed it.
I mean - just live with it. I find the GSL Up & Down matches extremely stupid, but that's life. Won't force me to stop watching the GSL. Just like that stupid Extended Series won't make me stop watch the MLG.
|
i think that is should be if you 2-0ed your opponent earlier in tournament you should have a 2-1 advantage over them in a bo7, and if you 2-1ed your opponent you should have a 1-0 advantage in bo5, but the winners bracket winner should only have to win 1 series imo
|
Shouldn't be used. It's stupid and not fair.
|
Because it's a whole new series.
You ever watch the nhl, the nba, the mlb? Do they factor in the season series and give the winners a 2-0 or 2-1 lead in the series?
No, it's a brand new series and you have to beat them starting at an even level. Series should be independent. Just because you won two games back in the pool-play should not affect outcomes for the semi-finals or any elimination matches. It's ridiculous. It makes it far less competitive and not nearly as entertaining.
|
Ugh, this is always brought up after an MLG event lol
|
the extended series made some amazing story lines. Nada, and Demuslim coming back after being down 0-2, Also hero almost did it too. I can see why MLG thinks its fair and will never remove, and I agree with them.
|
As it's already brought up.... regardless whether it's fair or not, extended series finals are most of a time an utter anticlimax.
|
On August 29 2011 09:20 BatCat wrote:
As it's already brought up.... regardless whether it's fair or not, extended series finals are most of a time an utter anticlimax.
finals would have been the same even with out the extended series rule, Remember MLG is double elimination.
|
On August 29 2011 09:18 MechKing wrote:
Ugh, this is always brought up after an MLG event lol
It's always brought up because a massive amount of people think the rule is ridiculous, and it certainly is. Each set should be independent of each other regardless of a previous win. The penalty was playing more games in the losers bracket and then still having to win two sets in a row in the finals. The extended series rule is such a terrible idea.
|
Its a dumb rule, and finals should be fresh start bo7, semis bo5, rest bo3 or quarters also bo5.
|
On August 29 2011 09:14 Divination wrote:
It's harsh but fair. Why should someone advance past you when you've beat them 3 times and they've only beat you twice?
Because both players have lost 1 bo3. Is it fair that someone could advance when they've lost 2 bo3s and other people in the lower bracket have only lost 1?
|
On August 29 2011 09:20 zaii wrote:
the extended series made some amazing story lines. Nada, and Demuslim coming back after being down 0-2, Also hero almost did it too. I can see why MLG thinks its fair and will never remove, and I agree with them.
I see this brought up again and again, whether or not a rule makes some games an "amazing story line" should not matter in a tournament setting. Yeah if Huk was forced to play all his matches without a keyboard then him winning a few games would be an "amazing story line", but it would not make MLG a very good tournament.
Did you think Sheth v. Hero 1-4, Trimaster v. Huk 1-4 and CoCa v. Bomber 1-4 were amazing story lines too?
There is a reason why MLG is the only organization in the world who thinks this is fair, as far as I know.
|
I like the concept of extended series, I just think it's slightly to harsh in MLG case.
I think giving a 1:0 advantage regardless of previous score and play a bo5 would give the best of both worlds.
Another issue I have is how MLG sends people from pools to brackets
It's like pool
A 1/4/1/4/1/4/1/4
B 2/3/2/3/2/3/2/3
C 4/1/4/1/1/4/1/4
D 3/2/3/2/3/2/3/2
But it should really be
A 1/2/3/4/1/2/3/4
B 2/3/4/1/2/3/4/1
C 3/4/1/2/3/4/1/2
D 4/1/2/3/4/1/2/3
It should halve the possible amount of extended series.
The whole point of extended series is basically this scenario though:
A loses to B 2:0. B then loses to C. 2:0
AB meet again in losers.
A beats B 2:0.
But if it's reversed
B loses to A 2:0. A then loses to C. 2:0
AB meet again in losers.
B beats B 2:0.
In both cases the players won/lost the exact amount of games against the exact players yet the final outcome differs. This should never be the case. This is saying that some games are more valuable than others, which is a huge issue especially when certain maps might give slight favor to a player.
Also the concept of extended series is pretty important in a strategy game as well. If you don't have some type of reward for winning the first set it punishes players with unique build orders or strategies when once shown aren't likely to work on the same player again.
I won't deny the current extended series does cause a bit of a let down especially in finals, and I think it could be implemented better but there definitely should be some form of small advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
