|
On October 17 2011 09:16 sGs.Kal_rA wrote:Pretty much  This isn't Halo. If it was like Halo it would work fine, but its not. Sigh. I do not realy care about Halo. But I cannot for the life of me understand why it works better there?
It is still the same kind of crap that ultimately can double-punish some people while others have luck on their side and do not get punished for loosing earlier.
|
On October 17 2011 09:17 Mementoss wrote: Is this necessary for every time MLG is going on? I'm pretty sure they know the majority doesn't like it. They are comfortable with there format and are not going to change it. I'm personally fine with the rule as the person from the winners bracket deserves some sort of advantage. God, can people seriously not scroll back one or two pages before posting?
The "winner deserves advantage" has been brought up a millions of time and had been counter-reasoned every time.
|
it gives unfair advantage no doubt about that!
|
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? That's the entire point to the argument against extended series, so yeah, I think that would be fair. Idra got rewarded for his 2-0 vs Boxer by getting higher seed in the bracket. He doesn't need another benefit from that win.
Not only do I think it's unfair, but it's kind of silly that Idra actually benefitted from the fact that Boxer beat Stephano and SaSe earlier. Had SaSe or Stephano gone through, Idra would not have had that advantage.
So why should Idra benefit from Boxer's wins?
|
On October 17 2011 09:17 Mementoss wrote: Is this necessary for every time MLG is going on? I'm pretty sure they know the majority doesn't like it. They are comfortable with there format and are not going to change it. I'm personally fine with the rule as the person from the winners bracket deserves some sort of advantage.
I'm not so sure they're not going to change it, Sundance has hinted at format changes before for next year's circuit. Obviously they're not going to change their rules mid-season.
|
On October 17 2011 09:19 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:17 Mementoss wrote: Is this necessary for every time MLG is going on? I'm pretty sure they know the majority doesn't like it. They are comfortable with there format and are not going to change it. I'm personally fine with the rule as the person from the winners bracket deserves some sort of advantage. God, can people seriously not scroll back one or two pages before posting? The "winner deserves advantage" has been brought up a millions of time and had been counter-reasoned every time.
not really, it's counter reasoned as in they disagree, but not counter reasoned as in a clear point as to why they shouldn't deserve advantage. Though i believe thats the wrong way to put it. Its simply an extended series of the original one.
|
On October 17 2011 09:22 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:19 Fubi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:17 Mementoss wrote: Is this necessary for every time MLG is going on? I'm pretty sure they know the majority doesn't like it. They are comfortable with there format and are not going to change it. I'm personally fine with the rule as the person from the winners bracket deserves some sort of advantage. God, can people seriously not scroll back one or two pages before posting? The "winner deserves advantage" has been brought up a millions of time and had been counter-reasoned every time. not really, it's counter reasoned as in they disagree, but not counter reasoned as in a clear point as to why they shouldn't deserve advantage. Though i believe thats the wrong way to put it. Its simply an extended series of the original one. can you read?
That's the entire point to the argument against extended series, so yeah, I think that would be fair. Idra got rewarded for his 2-0 vs Boxer by getting higher seed in the bracket. He doesn't need another benefit from that win.
Not only do I think it's unfair, but it's kind of silly that Idra actually benefitted from the fact that Boxer beat Stephano and SaSe earlier. Had SaSe or Stephano gone through, Idra would not have had that advantage.
So why should Idra benefit from Boxer's wins?
If that right there isn't enough reason to change it, I don't know what is.
|
I dont feel the extended series fits starcraft. It's way too hard to win two series. You could be having a bad day the first series thats played and be ontop of your game and still lose 3-4. It's kinda obnoxious.
|
Amazing best of 7 grand finals coming up, huge hype, oh wait, one guy only needs to win 2 games, zzzzzzzz.
|
Finally a PvP finals and it might be ruined by this extended series rule..
On a happy note + Show Spoiler +Protoss wins 
|
It's fair, but it sometimes ruins the finals. So now you're kind of conflicted. Do you want to be fair to the players when $5000 and a title is on the line, or do you want to be fair to the viewers?
Tough to say.
|
In any other tournament style, said player that has the "unfair" disadvantage would no longer be in the tourney. So your Boxer, or your Idra or your MC... who is DOWN... wouldn't even fucking be there. They were already Eliminated in bracket play. The worst part about this rule is having to explain it to idiots.
|
On October 17 2011 09:22 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:19 Fubi wrote:On October 17 2011 09:17 Mementoss wrote: Is this necessary for every time MLG is going on? I'm pretty sure they know the majority doesn't like it. They are comfortable with there format and are not going to change it. I'm personally fine with the rule as the person from the winners bracket deserves some sort of advantage. God, can people seriously not scroll back one or two pages before posting? The "winner deserves advantage" has been brought up a millions of time and had been counter-reasoned every time. not really, it's counter reasoned as in they disagree, but not counter reasoned as in a clear point as to why they shouldn't deserve advantage. Though i believe thats the wrong way to put it. Its simply an extended series of the original one. I guess to you, everything is just an opinion of disagreement unless scientific statistics or experimental theories are presented right?
|
Extended series completely ruined the end of what was an outstanding tournament.
I don't care about it being "fair", you cannot have an entire tournament lead up to a match that can end in 2 games, potentially less than 10 minutes of play. This is appallingly bad planning for several reasons.
|
On October 17 2011 09:21 labbe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:57 bbm wrote: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? That's the entire point to the argument against extended series, so yeah, I think that would be fair. Idra got rewarded for his 2-0 vs Boxer by getting higher seed in the bracket. He doesn't need another benefit from that win. Not only do I think it's unfair, but it's kind of silly that Idra actually benefitted from the fact that Boxer beat Stephano and SaSe earlier. Had SaSe or Stephano gone through, Idra would not have had that advantage. So why should Idra benefit from Boxer's wins?
Totally agree, Idra was already rewarded by a higher seed, and a "tired" (Idra just chilled while Boxer was playing Stephano and Sase). There is no reason at all to be up in the series, especially 2-0. It's unfair and kills the hype.
The only advantage I'm ok with, is the classic 1-0 advantage to the player coming from the winner bracket against the player coming from the loser bracket for the grand finals.
|
On October 17 2011 09:21 labbe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 06:57 bbm wrote: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? That's the entire point to the argument against extended series, so yeah, I think that would be fair. Idra got rewarded for his 2-0 vs Boxer by getting higher seed in the bracket. He doesn't need another benefit from that win. Not only do I think it's unfair, but it's kind of silly that Idra actually benefitted from the fact that Boxer beat Stephano and SaSe earlier. Had SaSe or Stephano gone through, Idra would not have had that advantage. So why should Idra benefit from Boxer's wins?
Nailed it bro =)
|
|
thanks for the great finals extended series
|
I lose interest in every mlg when it gets to the finals because of extended series
|
These are the type of people that complain about everything. Gets so fucking old.
People are going to complain about PvP finals no mater what you do, Extended Series is just the whipping boy this time.
|
|
|
|