|
On August 29 2011 11:08 BigLighthouse wrote:
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.
Hahaha. I've always hated extended series for a bunch of reasons, but I'd never noticed this slight contradiction in its formulation.
|
>Did you think Sheth v. Hero 1-4, Trimaster v. Huk 1-4 and CoCa v. Bomber 1-4 were amazing story lines too?
Yea those games would have been REAL nailbitters without extended series. 1-1 Trimaster vs Huk amg. I think the rule makes for the occasional great comeback, but without it, it demands more consistent play and allows for more upsets. Imagine if sheth took out hero or trimaster got huk. it would have been the talk of the tournament.
|
100% unfair.
Every series should be an isloated match. If you lost before, you are already punished by going to the losers bracket. It is very unfair to get punished twice.
It also lowers the spectacle of the later round matches.
|
I agree of the extended series rule being used for the championship winner bracket but not the losers bracket games.
|
I think upper bracket should start up 1 game over lower bracket and extended series should be removed if you ask me. As fun as it is to see players come back from a 0-2 deficit to take a series it's unfair when both players are meeting up again in the lower bracket in my opinion.
|
Another reason other than all those discussed that I find it a bad rule, is that it punishes the players who play loads of matches in the open bracket and then perform badly in their groups because of fatigue. The next day they are rested and ready to play to the best of their abilities, but already start at a deficit. I'd say maybe make the matches in the group stages not count if they really want to keep the rule.
|
I think the real issue that bothers people is the short finals. Even if the finals wasn't an extended series, it can sill be over pretty quick, sorta like MMA vs MVP. I gotta say, since it's a double elimination format, there absolutely has to be an advantage for the person coming from the winner's bracket, otherwise the winner never get's his 2nd chance like everyone else. The only alternative that can possibly make people happy is to make the final a bo5 with a possible 2nd series of bo5 if loser wins the first set. But that's potentially 10 games. The other option would be to make a bo7 with a 1 point head start for the winner, which can still potentially end in 3 games just like the previous MLG.
I think it's fine that the winner has an advantage since it's double elimination format, but it would be nice to have a longer finals.
In all seriousness, did anyone actually think Coca can beat bomber in a series? It wasn't even over all that much faster than a GSL finals, people keep complaing about all the GSLs were so 1 sided, it's like they forgot MKP vs MVP went to the 6th game at the GSL WC. The previous 2 GSL nestea faced people who were not his match because players who were his match had a hiccup and fell before getting to the finals. But if it was a double elimination, they can still come back. If a good player however slips up twice, then too bad, they're not champion material for that given moment.
The format also makes it feel like every match counts, unlike the NASL where there are certain matches in the pool play where it doesn't even matter anymore, so why should neither the players nor the audience even care. If anyone should fix up the format, it's the NASL. Groups of 10 is too big. Like take the GSL up/down matches, already with 5 players, there are matches that don't even matter which they don't even bother to make players play. With a group of 10, it creates even more of these pointless matches.
|
I feel that the extended series is necessary for the championship finals, since winner obviously deserves some kind of advantage for not dropping to the losers bracket. However, I don't really find it fair to have extended series in the losers bracket, simply because as others have pointed out, it makes it more difficult to go far in the tournament if you manage to climb out of open bracket into pools but don't perform as well due to fatigue and other issues. Also, because the matches take place on separate days, it makes it less forgiving for the person who makes the mistakes earlier in the pools than if they messed up in the lowers bracket, since they are already up in the extended series. So people who have to fly in, especially Koreans, probably suffer more due to jet lag.
|
On August 29 2011 11:19 Highways wrote:
100% unfair.
Every series should be an isloated match. If you lost before, you are already punished by going to the losers bracket. It is very unfair to get punished twice.
It also lowers the spectacle of the later round matches.
Yeah I agree. It makes the grand finals so fucking underwhelming. ugh
On August 29 2011 11:47 Xaerkar wrote:
I feel that the extended series is necessary for the championship finals, since winner obviously deserves some kind of advantage for not dropping to the losers bracket. However, I don't really find it fair to have extended series in the losers bracket, simply because as others have pointed out, it makes it more difficult to go far in the tournament if you manage to climb out of open bracket into pools but don't perform as well due to fatigue and other issues. Also, because the matches take place on separate days, it makes it less forgiving for the person who makes the mistakes earlier in the pools than if they messed up in the lowers bracket, since they are already up in the extended series. So people who have to fly in, especially Koreans, probably suffer more due to jet lag.
The advantage is not having to win an entire loser's bracket!! It's not unfair, the "winner" would've had the same advantage the "loser bracket" player had if he lost a game also.
|
I never quite understood it when people talk about stamina and fatigue. Don't these Koreans play a lot more than that on a regular practice day?
|
It makes the grand finals so fucking underwhelming.
QFT holy shit
|
It seems to me the whole rule is based around the concept of "fairness" in which what's "fair" is entirely subjective. Which I think is entirely the problem, as there's a huge amount of gray area of what that "fairness" is.
Personally, I think it's a little silly, but it's MLG's rules.
|
On August 29 2011 11:55 movac wrote:
I never quite understood it when people talk about stamina and fatigue. Don't these Koreans play a lot more than that on a regular practice day?
And the Koreans have taken the top 6 spots in the last 2 MLGs.
It's physically tiring to play 10 bo3's in a tournament setting against strong players back to back no matter who you are.
|
On August 29 2011 09:17 OnFiRe888 wrote:
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
LOL these are the exact same things.
I think BO7, 1 game lead for winners bracket winner would be fair. The 2 Bo3 rule is anticlimactic as well, even without extended series 
|
On August 29 2011 11:19 Highways wrote:
100% unfair.
Every series should be an isloated match. If you lost before, you are already punished by going to the losers bracket. It is very unfair to get punished twice.
It also lowers the spectacle of the later round matches.
So, Bomber who makes it all the way to the end without dropping a series now has to play the finals in a Bo3/5. Yet, every other player in the championship bracket gets a second life?
I'm not agreeing with the "loser's bracket" system but the extended series in effect to be as fair and balanced to the players playing, not the excitement of the spectator.
|
Even more than the extended series, I hate, absolutely hate that the two players in the finals do not go into the finals on equal ground, its so anticlimactic for what is supposed to be the climax of the tournament. The player that goes in down 0-2 is never going to win the series, they need to change their format somehow, I really don't like it.
|
On August 29 2011 12:00 DoublespeakUS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 11:19 Highways wrote:
100% unfair.
Every series should be an isloated match. If you lost before, you are already punished by going to the losers bracket. It is very unfair to get punished twice.
It also lowers the spectacle of the later round matches. So, Bomber who makes it all the way to the end without dropping a series now has to play the finals in a Bo3/5. Yet, every other player in the championship bracket gets a second life? I'm not agreeing with the "loser's bracket" system but the extended series in effect to be as fair and balanced to the players playing, not the excitement of the spectator.
It really isn't fair though, you basically just have to hope you don't run into someone who beat you in group stages. That's pretty lame/luck based. You could argue its the person's fault for losing in group stage and it makes the group stage games more interesting (you don't wanna be the 1st place guy, and have your opponent be last place, and you throw games because they dont matter but later you end up having to play the guy again)
I think their motive is to protect the group stages but it really fucks up the tournament later (specifically the finals)
Has anyone ever won who hasn't won the winners bracket?
|
On August 29 2011 11:40 movac wrote:
I think the real issue that bothers people is the short finals. Even if the finals wasn't an extended series, it can sill be over pretty quick, sorta like MMA vs MVP. I gotta say, since it's a double elimination format, there absolutely has to be an advantage for the person coming from the winner's bracket, otherwise the winner never get's his 2nd chance like everyone else. The only alternative that can possibly make people happy is to make the final a bo5 with a possible 2nd series of bo5 if loser wins the first set. But that's potentially 10 games. The other option would be to make a bo7 with a 1 point head start for the winner, which can still potentially end in 3 games just like the previous MLG.
I think it's fine that the winner has an advantage since it's double elimination format, but it would be nice to have a longer finals.
In all seriousness, did anyone actually think Coca can beat bomber in a series? It wasn't even over all that much faster than a GSL finals, people keep complaing about all the GSLs were so 1 sided, it's like they forgot MKP vs MVP went to the 6th game at the GSL WC. The previous 2 GSL nestea faced people who were not his match because players who were his match had a hiccup and fell before getting to the finals. But if it was a double elimination, they can still come back. If a good player however slips up twice, then too bad, they're not champion material for that given moment.
The format also makes it feel like every match counts, unlike the NASL where there are certain matches in the pool play where it doesn't even matter anymore, so why should neither the players nor the audience even care. If anyone should fix up the format, it's the NASL. Groups of 10 is too big. Like take the GSL up/down matches, already with 5 players, there are matches that don't even matter which they don't even bother to make players play. With a group of 10, it creates even more of these pointless matches.
I dunno, what bothers me at a finals like that is for Bomber to win, he needs to win TWO games, but for Coca to win, he needs to win SIX?? (4-X to win the first, extended series, then 2-x to win the second series.)
I don't like that, please adopt Homestory Cup's 1-0 advantage in a BO7 to the winner's bracket. I ALSO can't stand watching someone like Hero go 3-1 the second time he played DRG, only to drop 1 more game after being on a complete tear, and have that end it all. It's heartbreaking. Nobody should get a free 2 game lead in a BO7. Ever. It creates a really lame spectator experience and an unfair disadvantage to recoup for the player.
|
Personally I enjoy the way EVO did it. It is simple double elimination that only gets slightly weird at the end. The person who is undefeated at the end still is given the one loss handicap in the grand finals because that is the advantage that they earned through the entire tournament. But, if that was the only argument for my point, I could not argue against the way MLG does it. EVO is simply being consistent, everyone gets 1 loss, the winners bracket finalist just so happens to have to face the same person twice. The most fair rules are those that can be generalized, with extended series the context is too muddied and ambiguous to ever be truly fair.
|
Yeah but don't forget Bomber never lost wheras Coca did and was given a second chance, I still think with the MLG format the player that went through the winner bracket never losing should have an advantage over someone for the loser bracket that was given a second chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
