It is a fair rule. I still think they should change it.
Pool play should not be counted, it is a different series.
Winner gets a 1-0 lead.
I feel that a player going 2-0 then 1-2 should not be able to loose going 3-2.

zaii

Guam2611 Posts

August 29 2011 00:38 GMT

#682

On August 29 2011 09:30 halvorg wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

Story line for them was that they couldn't redeem themselves from the earlier losses like Nada and Demuslim. MLG has been using extended series since the beginning. It makes them unique to other tournaments, If players and spectators hate it so much then don't compete or watch MLG. Ranting about it now is useless, Since MLG League Ops have already confirmed that it's the one rule they will never change.

Marl

United States692 Posts

August 29 2011 00:40 GMT

#683

its fine especially for the finals when Bomber had just beat Cocoa 2-0 an hour before the grand final

MonkSEA

Australia1227 Posts

August 29 2011 00:41 GMT

#684

I think extended series adds some spark to MLG. I don't think it should be used though. I'd like bo5 semi's and bo7 finals as well, it just seems much more fair to both players if they play in them rather then bo3's.

dAPhREAk

Nauru12397 Posts

August 29 2011 00:44 GMT

#685

ahhh, yet another mlg has passed and the debate on extended series begins anew.

when my player has the advantage, i love it. when my player has the disadvantage, i hate it.

otherwise, the topic has been beaten to death. there are arguments both ways. most of tl.net apparently prefers it not be there, mlg apparently feels it should (but may be changing their minds), and the winner is mlg because its their tournament.

SpurvL

Sweden345 Posts

August 29 2011 00:45 GMT

#686

The only thing i really like with the rule is to see those awesome comebacks, turning a 0-2 to a 4-2

otherwise, i think it's just as much bad as good with..

Wargizmo

Australia1237 Posts

August 29 2011 00:53 GMT

#687

The one great advantage of extended series is it eliminates dead rubbers in pool play. That is, every match is important to every player because of the chance they might end up facing each other again later in the tourney.

Without extended series you'd get a lot of matches in pool play where one or both players don't give a shit about the result because it doesn't change their pool standing.

AxionSteel

United States7754 Posts

August 29 2011 00:57 GMT

#688

I was more negative about this after Columbus when there were just so many extended series that influenced the result of matches, but after Raliegh, i'm more annoyed at the fact that the finals are mostly going to be over in 2 or 3 games. It makes it really lackluster. Grand finals should be at least Bo5 or Bo7, and the upper bracket semis and lower bracket finals should be Bo5 as well, it's just not enough top level starcraft 2 as far as I'm concerned!!

RAW-BERRY

United States26 Posts

August 29 2011 01:16 GMT

#689

A lot of people are saying it's fair, but shouldn't be used. This makes very little sense to me. If it's fair, there's no reason not to use it. Why should people who lose before the Finals get a second chance, but the Finalist from the winners bracket get no second chance, or at least some sort of advantage? That just wouldn't make sense.

Tomfour

United States173 Posts

August 29 2011 01:20 GMT

#690

Honestly, the rule is pretty fair I guess to the players in a sense that if you win and have to face the same person it wasn't all for nothing. However, I think the advantage for winning should just be your placement in the bracket.

The extended series can be interesting, but the fact that the finals of MLG could be over in only 2 games is really really disappointing if it happens. The finals should always be a Bo7 no matter the circumstances, I feel like when you are really deep in a bracket, the fans want to watch as many games as possible, and the players want to be able to show as many games as possible.

frogrubdown

1266 Posts

August 29 2011 01:27 GMT

#691

On August 29 2011 10:16 RAW-BERRY wrote:
A lot of people are saying it's fair, but shouldn't be used. This makes very little sense to me. If it's fair, there's no reason not to use it. Why should people who lose before the Finals get a second chance, but the Finalist from the winners bracket get no second chance, or at least some sort of advantage? That just wouldn't make sense.

No one's saying the winner's finalist shouldn't get a second chance. What we have a problem with is people meeting in the losers bracket, each having lost at least one match, and one having an advantage because the other's loss happened to be to him. It's an additional advantage on top of that of staying alive in the winners longer.

There are many reasons not to use a fair rule. For instance, the rule might encourage boring, short, or one sided series. Of all the fair rules to choose from, it makes sense to choose the ones that have the least negative effects. Not that I'm 100% on board with the rule being fair.

Mallard86

186 Posts

August 29 2011 01:41 GMT

#692

On the surface, the extended series rule seems fair but ultimately it is not. You play to win the series. You do not play one series in the hopes that you end up in a better position for a rematch. I guarantee that if you watched a collection of Bo3 and Bo7 series you will see different game 2s in each series. You simply play the game differently because in one case its an elimination game and in the other its just one more game towards eventual elimination. Frankly each series is a stand alone series and needs to be treated as such. If there absolutely must be some advantage given to the previous winner then it should be in something like map selection.

Also series winners generally have to play less matches and get injected later into various rounds so they have already reaped the benefit of winning a series by the time they end up with some rematch.

There is another huge issue with the extended series. I went to barcraft tonight and instead of 4+ awesome games we were robbed by the extended series rule. The barcraft that should have gone on until 9 or 10 ended at an early 8 o'clock. At the very absolute least, the final should be a true Bo7. If SC2 wants to become a spectator sport, it has to eventually cater to the bar crowd. This means a fluid and sufficiently lengthy final and semifinals. Tournaments should minimize delays between the last few series and try to broadcast them at prime time and in proper and exciting series lengths. Going to barcraft already knowing that Coca was at a huge disadvantage then watching him lose in only 3 games was the sort of soul crushing disappointment that makes me think that maybe barcraft isnt worth it in extended series scenarios.

Crisco

1170 Posts

August 29 2011 01:45 GMT

#693

i would pay $100 to get the system changed for the finals

Spaceneil8

United States317 Posts

August 29 2011 01:47 GMT

#694

Since MLG's tournament is over such a short amount of time, a rematch is seen as a continuation of the previous series because nothing has changed between the two players.

Drygioni

Japan379 Posts

August 29 2011 01:48 GMT

#695

On August 29 2011 09:57 AxionSteel wrote:
I was more negative about this after Columbus when there were just so many extended series that influenced the result of matches, but after Raliegh, i'm more annoyed at the fact that the finals are mostly going to be over in 2 or 3 games. It makes it really lackluster. Grand finals should be at least Bo5 or Bo7, and the upper bracket semis and lower bracket finals should be Bo5 as well, it's just not enough top level starcraft 2 as far as I'm concerned!!

I agree with this. To me the extended series makes sense and seems fair but it just makes the finals underwhelming as it feels like the finals are just a regular Bo3.

wei2coolman

United States60033 Posts

August 29 2011 01:50 GMT

#696

I'm fine with extended series. It makes every game super important, so that top pool players will still take their last match super seriously even if they're guaranteed 1st pool spot.

Mallard86

186 Posts

August 29 2011 01:52 GMT

#697

Since MLG's tournament is over such a short amount of time, a rematch is seen as a continuation of the previous series because nothing has changed between the two players.

Imagine you are playing a football game. It has two fifteen minute quarters. Imagine you are playing another football game and it has four fifteen minute quarters. Would you play the second quarter of game one differently or the same as the second quarter of game two? Would it make sense to play game one then at the end of it decide to add another two quarters to it?

Zedex

United Kingdom310 Posts

August 29 2011 01:56 GMT

#698

I really dislike the extended series rule, if you ignore whether or not it's fair it significantly takes away form the final when its already 2-0 the series isn't as exciting and it feels over before its began. Most of the mlg finals i've watched were boring for me because of this. It seems to be something that is completely overlooked when talking about extended series, at least in my experience.

Sumwar

Canada199 Posts

August 29 2011 02:03 GMT

#699

All tournaments should realize how terrible loser brackets are. First tournaments should start with a group stage. And after a certain point the group stages are done with and its single elimination from that point onward. Loser brackets result in the winner from the losers bracket vs the winners from the winners bracket. The person from the losers bracket always has some sort of disadvantage. Gee I wonder who will win? It is so anti-climatic.

BigLighthouse

United Kingdom424 Posts

August 29 2011 02:08 GMT

#700

Its a stupid rule and most people realise that. If two players meet in the loser's bracket then they have both already had their 1 loss. It shouldnt matter who it was to because its a new series of games. If you treat it as 1 large series then you could make a fair argument that you really shouldnt be out of the tournament because you know what, you only lost 1 series, it was just a really big 1.