|
On October 17 2011 03:55 Beardedclam wrote:
Can we please fix this retarded rule? I don't understand how it makes sense at all....
The reward for winning against someone is getting placed higher in the bracket. They shouldn't get another advantage.
If you would actually read the thread, you'd understand how both perspectives make sense.
Extended series is better if you look at the entire tournament as a whole event. IdrA won 4 games against Boxer's 3. IdrA was a better player than BoxeR this tournament. However, without extended series, the better player (IdrA) would have been eliminated.
Extended series is worse if you look at the tournament as a set of individual series. In that case, it gives an unfair advantage to the winner because their reward was position in the bracket.
Neither perspective is right. The debate will never end because it cannot be won.
|
Idra deserved to lose that series he couldn't hold off a bitbybit all in from cross map position having scouted it beforehand.
|
This is a pretty simple matter. Whenever two players play each other twice, they obviously going to be 2 completely independent series in terms. A playoff is a playoff. Series should all start 0-0 no matter what.
|
On October 17 2011 04:07 Denzil wrote:
You're post is pretty ignorant.
|
Imagine if in the world cup final they said:
Oh by the way Spain you start 3-0 down because you lost in the group stages to Brazil.
Dumbest thing ever.
|
On October 17 2011 04:13 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:55 Beardedclam wrote:
Can we please fix this retarded rule? I don't understand how it makes sense at all....
The reward for winning against someone is getting placed higher in the bracket. They shouldn't get another advantage. If you would actually read the thread, you'd understand how both perspectives make sense. Extended series is better if you look at the entire tournament as a whole event. IdrA won 4 games against Boxer's 3. IdrA was a better player than BoxeR this tournament. However, without extended series, the better player (IdrA) would have been eliminated. Extended series is worse if you look at the tournament as a set of individual series. In that case, it gives an unfair advantage to the winner because their reward was position in the bracket. Neither perspective is right. The debate will never end because it cannot be won.
idra already got a reward for beating boxer 2-0 in group play as he advanced further in the bracket than boxer. Extended series would only make sense in a double match when 2 players meet in the winner bracket and then in the losers. But mixing group play results with bracket results is dumb
|
You lose in pool stage, there for you get seeded lower. So your "punishment" is that you have to work all the way back up.
That isnt enough? I seriously dont get this stupid rule.
|
|
|
On October 17 2011 04:13 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:55 Beardedclam wrote:
Can we please fix this retarded rule? I don't understand how it makes sense at all....
The reward for winning against someone is getting placed higher in the bracket. They shouldn't get another advantage. If you would actually read the thread, you'd understand how both perspectives make sense. Extended series is better if you look at the entire tournament as a whole event. IdrA won 4 games against Boxer's 3. IdrA was a better player than BoxeR this tournament. However, without extended series, the better player (IdrA) would have been eliminated. Extended series is worse if you look at the tournament as a set of individual series. In that case, it gives an unfair advantage to the winner because their reward was position in the bracket. Neither perspective is right. The debate will never end because it cannot be won.
No, your argument of looking at the tournament as a whole event doesn't make sense.
Because if you look at the tournament as a whole, Boxer had to go through Stephano and Sase because of his pool results while Idra didn't. Therefore, because of his pool result, he is already punished for seeding lower in the bracket (and hence the whole purpose of pool play in the first place). So looking at the whole picture, how does it make sense that the pool result would carry over again? This is double dipping the result.
Look at it another way; if you consider the tournament as a whole, you would have to consider the other results. Sure, Idra 4-3 over Boxer, but Boxer beat Stephano and Sase while Idra hasnt proven that he can beat them. So who are you to say that the one game Idra has over Boxer is worth more than beating Stephano and Sase in a full series?
|
On October 17 2011 04:15 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 04:13 dcemuser wrote:On October 17 2011 03:55 Beardedclam wrote:
Can we please fix this retarded rule? I don't understand how it makes sense at all....
The reward for winning against someone is getting placed higher in the bracket. They shouldn't get another advantage. If you would actually read the thread, you'd understand how both perspectives make sense. Extended series is better if you look at the entire tournament as a whole event. IdrA won 4 games against Boxer's 3. IdrA was a better player than BoxeR this tournament. However, without extended series, the better player (IdrA) would have been eliminated. Extended series is worse if you look at the tournament as a set of individual series. In that case, it gives an unfair advantage to the winner because their reward was position in the bracket. Neither perspective is right. The debate will never end because it cannot be won. idra already got a reward for beating boxer 2-0 in group play as he advanced further in the bracket than boxer. Extended series would only make sense in a double match when 2 players meet in the winner bracket and then in the losers. But mixing group play results with bracket results is dumb
Exactly. Extended series for double elimination is fine, not for pool play. It's stupid that you can go into bracket play with a lead. Pool games shouldn't have the same weighting as a bracket game.
If this rule had more pros than it does cons, they'd be using it in every sort of event. They don't, because it's simply unfair.
|
If MLG insists on keeping the ES rule, they should rework their SC2 schedule a little bit. Probably move one round from the last day to the previous day. Starcraft is a game in which getting tired really plays quite a huge factor. And now, in the last day there's too high likelihood for the most ES to be played, as people come back from the bottom bracket and bump again into their nemesis. With so many tournament games concentrated in one day, they eventually start losing more due to fatigue, than lack of skill.
tldr: to keep ES, please move one round from the last day to the previous day, to allow lighter schedule in this one final day
|
On October 17 2011 04:15 Klive5ive wrote:
Imagine if in the world cup final they said:
Oh by the way Spain you start 3-0 down because you lost in the group stages to Brazil.
Dumbest thing ever.
haha, that would be cash
|
Hope they fix it. Think the only reason they are keeping it is to be stubborn and have something (even if its a totally bad and useless rule) that differates them from other tournements.
|
On October 17 2011 05:39 Artok wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 04:15 Klive5ive wrote:
Imagine if in the world cup final they said:
Oh by the way Spain you start 3-0 down because you lost in the group stages to Brazil.
Dumbest thing ever. haha, that would be cash
Do people still use the word cash like that? Oh god, horrible memories from the 90s.
Anyways, group stages have nothing to do with Ex. Series rules.
It would be like if Germany kicked Spain's ass in the REAL tournament, and then Spain got a second chance at a slight disadvantage.
|
On October 17 2011 05:42 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:39 Artok wrote:On October 17 2011 04:15 Klive5ive wrote:
Imagine if in the world cup final they said:
Oh by the way Spain you start 3-0 down because you lost in the group stages to Brazil.
Dumbest thing ever. haha, that would be cash Anyways, group stages have nothing to do with Ex. Series rules. It would be like if Germany kicked Spain's ass in the REAL tournament, and then Spain got a second chance at a slight disadvantage.
What? Do you still think Spain deserve that disadvantage if they have to first go through England, and then Brazil, and then back to Spain while Germany just sat there waiting for Spain?
And also, a 0-2 start and having to win 4 games while your opponent having to win 2 is not "slight" disadvantage. It is as much of a disadvantage as starting 2-0 in a World Cup game.
|
On October 17 2011 05:42 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 05:39 Artok wrote:On October 17 2011 04:15 Klive5ive wrote:
Imagine if in the world cup final they said:
Oh by the way Spain you start 3-0 down because you lost in the group stages to Brazil.
Dumbest thing ever. haha, that would be cash Do people still use the word cash like that? Oh god, horrible memories from the 90s. Anyways, group stages have nothing to do with Ex. Series rules. It would be like if Germany kicked Spain's ass in the REAL tournament, and then Spain got a second chance at a slight disadvantage.
dunno, remembered that usage of cash when i read that post :D
and no, it would be like, germany wins against spain in group stage, then gets like 2-0 advantage in semis, would make 0 sense.
|
well champions league goes off aggregate right? same concept
|
On October 17 2011 05:56 Seiferz wrote:
well champions league goes off aggregate right? same concept
How is it the same concept?!!!!
Oh god what have I started.
That analogy doesn't work at all; at least mine made a little bit of sense.
|
On October 17 2011 04:13 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 03:55 Beardedclam wrote:
Can we please fix this retarded rule? I don't understand how it makes sense at all....
The reward for winning against someone is getting placed higher in the bracket. They shouldn't get another advantage. If you would actually read the thread, you'd understand how both perspectives make sense. Extended series is better if you look at the entire tournament as a whole event. IdrA won 4 games against Boxer's 3. IdrA was a better player than BoxeR this tournament. However, without extended series, the better player (IdrA) would have been eliminated. Extended series is worse if you look at the tournament as a set of individual series. In that case, it gives an unfair advantage to the winner because their reward was position in the bracket. Neither perspective is right. The debate will never end because it cannot be won.
lol but we can say one thing for sure: Your argument doesnt make sense^^
|
On October 17 2011 05:56 Seiferz wrote:
well champions league goes off aggregate right? same concept
aggregate rules are about goals scored away being worth more than ones scored at home in case of tie, how is that the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
