|
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.
You fail to understand that bomber has this opp for a "second chance."
it's just so fucking lame that in EVERY GRAND FINALS, it will never be "fair." it's just fucking boring to watch. even if it was unfair, if it's boring to watch, it needs to be cut.
Every other player gets a second chance but also has to play more games.
|
On August 29 2011 12:12 Vei wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 12:00 DoublespeakUS wrote: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. You fail to understand that bomber has this opp for a "second chance." it's just so fucking lame that in EVERY GRAND FINALS, it will never be "fair." it's just fucking boring to watch. even if it was unfair, if it's boring to watch, it needs to be cut. Every other player gets a second chance but also has to play more games.
Why is bo7 1 game lead so hard to understand? I feel like people keep ignoring it. Basically every BW tournament was either the two bo3 rules (which suck) or the 1 game advantage rule (which is far better for spectators and still fair)
|
On August 29 2011 12:10 rezoacken wrote:
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.
Doesn't matter. Bomber might not have ever lost, but it makes the finals not even worth watching because I know bomber isn't going to go 1-6 against coca. (2 wins at ALMOST any point, except if 1 is in the first series, and 1 in the second, wins bomber the tournament.) Bomber deserves an advantage. He doesn't deserve a 5 game advantage.
On August 29 2011 12:14 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 12:12 Vei wrote:On August 29 2011 12:00 DoublespeakUS wrote: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. You fail to understand that bomber has this opp for a "second chance." it's just so fucking lame that in EVERY GRAND FINALS, it will never be "fair." it's just fucking boring to watch. even if it was unfair, if it's boring to watch, it needs to be cut. Every other player gets a second chance but also has to play more games. Why is bo7 1 game lead so hard to understand? I feel like people keep ignoring it. Basically every BW tournament was either the two bo3 rules (which suck) or the 1 game advantage rule (which is far better for spectators and still fair)
Yeah, 1 game advantage (homestory cup did it, EVO apparently does it too?) is simple, and it means that if they straight up trade games, the person who was ahead all tournament is the winner. That's an advantage I can agree with, and one that the player should still feel is still worthwhile to have.
|
On August 29 2011 12:05 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 12:00 DoublespeakUS wrote: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?
I think you may have misinterpreted him. I read him as claiming that it's needed in the finals for fairness but not anywhere else.
|
On August 29 2011 12:14 sylverfyre wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 12:10 rezoacken wrote:
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. Doesn't matter. Bomber might not have ever lost, but it makes the finals not even worth watching because I know bomber isn't going to go 1-6 against coca. (2 wins at ALMOST any point, except if 1 is in the first series, and 1 in the second, wins bomber the tournament.) Bomber deserves an advantage. He doesn't deserve a 5 game advantage.
Not to mention such a huge leeway in a game like SC2 allows the person with the advantage to take more risks and steal some wins. Some races are better at this than others but it's something they should avoid. Even worse when you take into consideration that some maps are easier to take huge risks on. Just a recipe for underwhelming disaster.
|
On August 29 2011 12:19 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2011 12:14 sylverfyre wrote:On August 29 2011 12:10 rezoacken wrote:
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. Doesn't matter. Bomber might not have ever lost, but it makes the finals not even worth watching because I know bomber isn't going to go 1-6 against coca. (2 wins at ALMOST any point, except if 1 is in the first series, and 1 in the second, wins bomber the tournament.) Bomber deserves an advantage. He doesn't deserve a 5 game advantage. Not to mention such a huge leeway in a game like SC2 allows the person with the advantage to take more risks and steal some wins. Some races are better at this than others but it's something they should avoid. Even worse when you take into consideration that some maps are easier to take huge risks on. Just a recipe for underwhelming disaster.
That's not something that should be avoided at all, that's the point of long series. It's part of the strategy, if someone is up two games in a best of five or seven, they'll often take risks in that third game. That's one of the strategic benefits of a longer series.
I just can't believe people are still on about the extended series rule, I think it's perfectly fair, and I think it creates more exciting series when players come back from deficits (Hello Nada/Hero!) I would be extremely upset if Bomber made it all the way to the finals, and all loses 1-2 to Coca in the finals when he just 2-0d him a couple of hours ago. If these matches were individual events days apart I would think extended series is unfair, otherwise I don't mind them not being considered isolated series. Personally I think it's a quirky rule that makes MLG a bit different and more interesting than other tournaments. Something I don't like however, best of three semi-finals and finals?! No thanks.
|
In all seriousness, did anyone actually think Coca can beat bomber in a series?
Coca massively outplayed bomber for the majority of game one and two of the final. He only lost game two because he made a poor decision to send in a second counter attack rather than destroy bombers army in the field. Consider that bomber won two of the other three games with stupid cheese and I dont see how you can make such a bold statement.
|
I don't know if it's fair or not, but I've never really seen the point of having it.
|
Regardless of who can win or should win XYZ it's pretty clear to SC2 fans that pretty much nobody enjoys seeing an extended series final...at the bare minimum it could be removed for the finals matches.
|
Well it only partially applies to the finals: if the person from the losers bracket wins the first best of 3 having no prior series with the other player, a new best of 3 will start rather than making it an extended series.
|
It is funny how MLG creates problems from nothing without any logical reason .. Basically they can have a standard format all bo3, winner bracket final bo5 and grand final bo7. But instead they create a format that is absolutely unfair to the players and less interesting for the viewers. Finals 2 games? Seriously? Now compare that to the epic NASL finals.
|
It is simply not fair to drop the rule. Players need to be rewarded for, you know, not losing. Losing players get a second chance -- so should the winning player. It's not difficult to understand. It might not always make for the most dynamic viewing experiences; however, it is fair and that is more important.
|
lakers vs celtics
celtics have to win 2 best of 7's to take the championship.
doesn't make sense. the general gist of the extended series rule is to get more games, i like that. however it's not like the games are fucking streamed anyways (drg vs hero wasn't streamed my god). remember how hype tsl was? naniwa vs thorzain noone had an advantage everyone was anxious to see how it would go down in a bo7.
sure it's great when the underdog wins, but it's so much better for the viewer if it was "anyone could win omg" rather than "oh player a is probably gonna win, if player b wins it'll be great!"
oh and pool play to decide who goes into losers? i don't like it. just have elimination pools even if they have to last a bit longer, there will be less lower bracket games no one really cares about anyways. really made no sense to have 80% of the players in pool go to losers.
im talking more about double elimination but i dislike extended series because it's got the same flaws, it's just a winner bracker vs losers bracket game every time 2 people play for the second time.
|
On August 29 2011 16:07 IPA wrote:
It is simply not fair to drop the rule. Players need to be rewarded for, you know, not losing. Losing players get a second chance -- so should the winning player. It's not difficult to understand. It might not always make for the most dynamic viewing experiences; however, it is fair and that is more important.
They do get something for winning already, it's called advancing, just like in every other tournament.
And regarding second chances, if both players meet again in the loser's bracket, they are BOTH at their second chance, that is the whole point of being in the loser's. This is why people are saying that neither player should have any sort of advantage, unless of course, it is the grand finals.
|
I feel it having an extended series for a 2-0 and giving a 2 game lead for that is a bit unfair. An extended series should only give a 1 game lead, which gives the previous winner an advantage, but a manageable one.
|
On August 29 2011 16:06 Joseph123 wrote:
It is funny how MLG creates problems from nothing without any logical reason .. Basically they can have a standard format all bo3, winner bracket final bo5 and grand final bo7. But instead they create a format that is absolutely unfair to the players and less interesting for the viewers. Finals 2 games? Seriously? Now compare that to the epic NASL finals.
The NASL finals were single elimination, if you want single elimination that's fine but what we're seeing is pretty much the absolute proper implementation of double elimination as far as the format goes.
Doing a Bo7 with a 1 game lead is still unfair because one game is not comparable to the ability to drop a set which the loser's bracket finalist was granted, it just isn't comparable no matter how you swing it. The only direct fair way to work out a final in this scenario using the double elimination format is to have an Extended Series or two Bo3s.
So yeah, I'd be fine with removing the extended series rule if we consider each series individual, but in the finals it would still have to be 2 Bo3s for the loser's bracket finalist, 1 Bo3 for the winner's bracket finalist in order to be fair.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Can you imagine if the World Cup used this? If Brazil and Spain were in the same group, Spain won 2-0 but both advanced from the group, and then met again in the final... using MLG rules the WC Final would start off with an extended series of 2-0. And it would suck balls.
It's the finals. Give a small edge or just do a clean slate.
|
Why don't they just adjust it so that:
If the first series was 2-1 then there is no advantage.
If the first series was 2-0 then there is a 1-0 start in a BO5 extended series.
I can handle watching an extended series start out at a one game advantage, I don't necessarily think it's fair though. What I can't stand is a 2 game advantage, I find that ridiculous. MLG gets to keep their silly 'advantage' methodology.
|
On August 29 2011 16:23 Klogon wrote:
Can you imagine if the World Cup used this? If Brazil and Spain were in the same group, Spain won 2-0 but both advanced from the group, and then met again in the final... using MLG rules the WC Final would start off with an extended series of 2-0. And it would suck balls.
It's the finals. Give a small edge or just do a clean slate.
On August 29 2011 16:14 dignity wrote:
I feel it having an extended series for a 2-0 and giving a 2 game lead for that is a bit unfair. An extended series should only give a 1 game lead, which gives the previous winner an advantage, but a manageable one.
Arbitrarily assigning an a slight advantage or a "small edge" to make it more manageable would be stupid in my opinion, the only way to actually make it fair if you don't want an extended series is to assume that every match was stand-alone and make each encounter a clean slate.
However, once again the finals would still have to have the player from the loser's bracket win 2 series and the player from the winner's bracket win 1 series in order to be fair. If you're using double elimination, you can't suddenly pull it out for the finals, that's unfair to the winner's bracket finalist.
|
It's unbelievable how many people don't even know the difference between general double elimination tournaments and then MLG's extra extended series rule. For the love of god, if you don't know anything about it, we don't need to hear your opinion. >_<
Seems the majority of people whining about extended series are actually just complaining about double elimination. Not giving the player from winner bracket an advantage in the grand final is beyond retarded. Complaining about extended series is fair enough, but even without it the finals should still be two Bo3s
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
