|
On October 17 2011 06:04 labbe wrote:
The extended series rule is retarded, and it has ruined so many MLGs and screwed over so many players on the way (Boxer T_T). The moment MLG gets rid of it, it will be a MUCH better event.
how did it screw over boxer? boxer is the one who failed to win a single macro game, not idra.
|
On October 17 2011 06:04 labbe wrote:
The extended series rule is retarded, and it has ruined so many MLGs and screwed over so many players on the way (Boxer T_T). The moment MLG gets rid of it, it will be a MUCH better event.
How did it screw over boxer? Out of the games he played against idra, he won three and idra won four, so idra went through.
If it wasn't extended series, and he'd 2-1'd idra, then idra would have won three games overall but boxer only two games... and you think that is more fair?
|
It's "Fair" but I don't like it.
|
On October 17 2011 06:52 cursor wrote:
I think it is fine. In any other Bracket structure the loser would just be Out. Single elimination is too unforgiving... doesn't produce the most dependable results. But, having the series "reset" essentially isn't fair to the player who has already defeated someone.
Again this argument is invalid because, in this case, Idra already got an advantage aswell as all the others who got number 1 in their group.
It's a huge advantage not having to go up against Sase and Stephano but "only" go against Boxer.
I atleast am fairly convinced that Idra would choose to just not play them, if he got to choose.
But this system takes the winner, gives him a shorter route to the finals and also makes it even shorter in case he goes up against a player he has already beaten. As if the late entrance into the pool aswell as the mental upperhand, by having won earlier, isn't enough...
|
it is fair. what would be the alternative? 2 best of 3s? just leave it this way, it make the MLG System unique.
|
On October 17 2011 06:54 Let it Raine wrote:
it turns into a bo7
its perfectly fine
i rather they remove extended retard series and replace quarterfinals with BO5
|
On October 17 2011 06:57 bbm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:04 labbe wrote:
The extended series rule is retarded, and it has ruined so many MLGs and screwed over so many players on the way (Boxer T_T). The moment MLG gets rid of it, it will be a MUCH better event. How did it screw over boxer? Out of the games he played against idra, he won three and idra won four, so idra went through. If it wasn't extended series, and he'd 2-1'd idra, then idra would have won three games overall but boxer only two games... and you think that is more fair?
Because Boxer had to go thru Stephanos and Sase while Idra didn't because of the first 2-0 (Idra didn't have to play anyone in general).
Pretty much the first series was to see who gets two free series and be seeded further ahead in the bracket. That is the whole point of pool play is it not? And it already satisfied just that: Boxer seeded farther down and having to play extra opponents and risk being eliminated, while Idra didn't. So why does Boxer have to start at a disadvantage again against Idra?
|
On October 17 2011 07:05 zul wrote:
it is fair. what would be the alternative? 2 best of 3s? just leave it this way, it make the MLG System unique.
Nothing changed for normal matches, 2 BO3 for finals, like it'd be normally.
|
On October 17 2011 06:57 bbm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:04 labbe wrote:
The extended series rule is retarded, and it has ruined so many MLGs and screwed over so many players on the way (Boxer T_T). The moment MLG gets rid of it, it will be a MUCH better event. How did it screw over boxer? Out of the games he played against idra, he won three and idra won four, so idra went through. If it wasn't extended series, and he'd 2-1'd idra, then idra would have won three games overall but boxer only two games... and you think that is more fair?
Yes, that is more fair. Because Boxer is the emperor. And like what artosis said. "Idra is so boring... (at 23:08 GMT)"
|
On October 17 2011 06:57 bbm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:04 labbe wrote:
The extended series rule is retarded, and it has ruined so many MLGs and screwed over so many players on the way (Boxer T_T). The moment MLG gets rid of it, it will be a MUCH better event. How did it screw over boxer? Out of the games he played against idra, he won three and idra won four, so idra went through. If it wasn't extended series, and he'd 2-1'd idra, then idra would have won three games overall but boxer only two games... and you think that is more fair?
Considering boxer had to knock his way all the way back to idra's position, yes that is fair.
This is something a lot of ppl seem to forget here.
Yea you get a get a second chance to defeat the player and win the tournament but ever thought what you need to do to actualy get there again?
You have to play match after match till you get there so you will be more tired then the other player and THEN you give the other player another 2points? Yea....
|
It only gives an unfair advantage to players who do well in the Round Robin, providing extra incentive to do well from the beginning, providing more interesting games.
Of course, the system does favour "Established" players more than newcomers, but that is actually explicit in the design of the entire league. Keeping the top players interested isn't a question of money, as we can see in the NASL. It's about honour, proving yourself and staying consistent.
And knowing how to beat Koreans of course.
|
Something else I noticed about the extended series. If it does go to the full 7 games, it is actually quite the disadvantage for either player. For example, today idra vs boxer went to game 7 and thus they were the last game of that stage to finish. No matter who wins, they have to immediatly play their next match.
|
On October 17 2011 06:38 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +Benefits of, and all opinions against it are debatable. Not really worth discussing, don't lose to a player if you really believe you shouldn't and it will not be a problem in the losers bracket if you meet again. Are you serious? Just because it's possible to always win, this shouldn't even be discussed. That's your argument. I at least respect people who defend the rule for defending their opinion, but people who just try to sweep it under the rug for ridiculous reasoning disgust me. This has nothing to do with single/double elimination, extended series is not standard in double elim. It is absolutely a crucial issue and it makes a difference.
It is standard for the very reason that MLG is the only large tournament body that hosts SC2 with double elimination. Don't use the word if you don't understand the meaning of it. 
|
I'm guessing the NBA should configure the playoffs with extended series also. And Football.
Team X goes 2-1 during the regular season against Team Y. Team X needs to win 2 more game and Team Y needs to win 3. This is exactly the same scenario as MLG.
A playoff is a playoff. Series should start 0-0 no matter what.
|
On October 17 2011 07:44 TheOne85 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:38 Redmark wrote:Benefits of, and all opinions against it are debatable. Not really worth discussing, don't lose to a player if you really believe you shouldn't and it will not be a problem in the losers bracket if you meet again. Are you serious? Just because it's possible to always win, this shouldn't even be discussed. That's your argument. I at least respect people who defend the rule for defending their opinion, but people who just try to sweep it under the rug for ridiculous reasoning disgust me. This has nothing to do with single/double elimination, extended series is not standard in double elim. It is absolutely a crucial issue and it makes a difference. It is standard for the very reason that MLG is the only large tournament body that hosts SC2 with double elimination. Don't use the word if you don't understand the meaning of it.
He said standard "in double elim", didn't say anything about SC2. Clearly he understood the meaning of it, and you're the one that misunderstood his meaning of it.
|
Honestly I prefer extended series in MLG simply because all the games are played so close together. If MLG was held over the course of several weeks, there wouldn't really be any reasonable way to support extended series. However, because parts 1 and 2 of matches can all be held on the same day it is undeniably unfair to ignore a players previous wins against the same player only a few hours ago.
|
with mlg rules, it would be possible that in the finals, the player coming from the lowerbracket is up 2-0 cause they played in poolplay and he won.
so for instance if hero had made it to the finals, he would lead against huk... weird? YES.
The rule always has been stupid-
|
Can't wait till someday the one from the upper bracket is down 0:2 or 1:2 in the grand-finals because of extended series.
|
On October 17 2011 06:57 bbm wrote:
If it wasn't extended series, and he'd 2-1'd idra, then idra would have won three games overall but boxer only two games... and you think that is more fair?
Idra lost to Marineking. Huk lost to Hero. Is it unfair that Hero isnt in the finals?
=> Its not about direct results. Loosers bracket means (like in double elimination) that everyone has a second shot. With extended series you screw this up.
|
The extended series rule is basically making the players a best of 7. In the GSL finals, when Nestea had 2-0 leads over Losira or Inca, no one asked that the series be reset to make it more entertaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
