EPTPool 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.
MLG extended Series Poll - Page 35
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
shtdisturbance
Canada613 Posts
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
On August 29 2011 09:30 halvorg wrote: 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 States694 Posts
| ||
|
MonkSEA
Australia1227 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
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
 otherwise, i think it's just as much bad as good with.. | ||
|
Wargizmo
1237 Posts
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
| ||
|
RAW-BERRY
United States26 Posts
| ||
|
Tomfour
United States173 Posts
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
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
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
| ||
|
Spaceneil8
United States317 Posts
| ||
|
Drygioni
Japan379 Posts
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
| ||
|
Mallard86
186 Posts
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
| ||
|
Sumwar
Canada199 Posts
| ||
|
BigLighthouse
United Kingdom424 Posts
| ||
| ||
