|
On October 17 2011 09:33 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:22 darklight54321 wrote: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?
well, thats what a difference of opinion IS in effect, but not what i meant. Disagreeing with something doesn't make it wrong, creationists disagree with evolution, doesn't mean evolution is wrong.
|
On October 17 2011 09:44 0neder wrote:
You should have a poll:
Regardless of fairness, is the extended series more or less exciting for viewers and hyping the finals?
That would get better results I think, because it's fair. It's just not exciting.
It is not even fair! People should learn to read the arguments against extended series.
It has been pointed out so many times why it is unfair and it makes it completely random if you get that extra advantage of a win or if you do not. Randomness should not be there!
|
On October 17 2011 09:18 Alvar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:16 sGs.Kal_rA wrote:On October 17 2011 08:30 KimJongChill wrote:
I think we all hate this, lol. 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.
Haha no idea.. Never watched a game of professional Halo in my life (=
|
You guys are just whining because the loser of extended series was down, if it was 0:2 into 4:2 or 4:3 it would be "best" "incredible" "most spectacular" series ever.... Every stick has two sides. I am not saying that extended series is more fair/less fair then a normal Bo7 but it's certainly not bad as people tend to make it. All this whining and bumping old topic is just after disappointing result of one extended series, what a surprise...
|
I don't consider it fair and I hope they get rid of it.
|
Well, tournament with looser bracket with always have this problem in finals, it is unfair for the player who hasnt lost any games to be penalized with a bo7 without allowing to loose a series. So in reality MLG winner bracket finalist should have extended series AND a chance to loose a series.. That offcourse makes the finals a joke.
Compromise? Make it bo5-7 whatever and give the player cooming from winner the ability to choose first map?
|
On October 17 2011 09:49 Alvar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:44 0neder wrote:
You should have a poll:
Regardless of fairness, is the extended series more or less exciting for viewers and hyping the finals?
That would get better results I think, because it's fair. It's just not exciting. It is not even fair! People should learn to read the arguments against extended series. It has been pointed out so many times why it is unfair and it makes it completely random if you get that extra advantage of a win or if you do not. Randomness should not be there!
How is it random? Player A beat player B, therefore player b should obviously treated as if he never lost to player A if they rematch within the same tournament?
|
On October 17 2011 09:52 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:49 Alvar wrote:On October 17 2011 09:44 0neder wrote:
You should have a poll:
Regardless of fairness, is the extended series more or less exciting for viewers and hyping the finals?
That would get better results I think, because it's fair. It's just not exciting. It is not even fair! People should learn to read the arguments against extended series. It has been pointed out so many times why it is unfair and it makes it completely random if you get that extra advantage of a win or if you do not. Randomness should not be there! How is it random? Player A beat player B, therefore player b should obviously treated as if he never lost to player A if they rematch within the same tournament?
It is random in the sense that, Idra getting a 2-0 advantage in his first game in the championship bracket is completely out of his hands. So Idra is basically cheering for Boxer to win vs Stephano and SaSe, because if he does, then Idra gets a 2-0 advantage in his game.
Now if you don't see a problem with that, then I guess we can just agree to disagree.
|
It's obviously fair but makes for extremely boring series. It's fair because the winner has taken that many games off of you before in the same tournament.
|
On October 17 2011 09:54 labbe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:52 darklight54321 wrote:On October 17 2011 09:49 Alvar wrote:On October 17 2011 09:44 0neder wrote:
You should have a poll:
Regardless of fairness, is the extended series more or less exciting for viewers and hyping the finals?
That would get better results I think, because it's fair. It's just not exciting. It is not even fair! People should learn to read the arguments against extended series. It has been pointed out so many times why it is unfair and it makes it completely random if you get that extra advantage of a win or if you do not. Randomness should not be there! How is it random? Player A beat player B, therefore player b should obviously treated as if he never lost to player A if they rematch within the same tournament? It is random in the sense that, Idra getting a 2-0 advantage in his first game in the championship bracket is completely out of his hands. So Idra is basically cheering for Boxer to win vs Stephano and SaSe, because if he does, then Idra gets a 2-0 advantage in his game. Now if you don't see a problem with that, then I guess we can just agree to disagree.
This. I really have a hard time understanding this rule, it just doesn't make sense.
|
On October 17 2011 09:52 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:49 Alvar wrote:On October 17 2011 09:44 0neder wrote:
You should have a poll:
Regardless of fairness, is the extended series more or less exciting for viewers and hyping the finals?
That would get better results I think, because it's fair. It's just not exciting. It is not even fair! People should learn to read the arguments against extended series. It has been pointed out so many times why it is unfair and it makes it completely random if you get that extra advantage of a win or if you do not. Randomness should not be there! How is it random? Player A beat player B, therefore player b should obviously treated as if he never lost to player A if they rematch within the same tournament?
It is random if they face each other or not. Player A and B might both be 4-1 in their group. Player A had luck on their side and got to face player B which gave an easier matchup in the brackets, while at the same time player A got lucky again and did not have to face player C that actually beat him earlier in the groups.
edit: also see above reason for another way it is random.
|
On October 17 2011 09:52 darklight54321 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:49 Alvar wrote:On October 17 2011 09:44 0neder wrote:
You should have a poll:
Regardless of fairness, is the extended series more or less exciting for viewers and hyping the finals?
That would get better results I think, because it's fair. It's just not exciting. It is not even fair! People should learn to read the arguments against extended series. It has been pointed out so many times why it is unfair and it makes it completely random if you get that extra advantage of a win or if you do not. Randomness should not be there! How is it random? Player A beat player B, therefore player b should obviously treated as if he never lost to player A if they rematch within the same tournament?
Please, scroll back one or two pages and read the arguments..
player b is already treated from winning the first set by being placed further in the bracket. Stop using the same "winner needs an advantage" argument over and over again, it's already been argued to death.
|
Unfairly boring to the spectator.
|
people that dont get it are dumb, its a fair rule
if you have 7 maps to play and say in round 1 you play some guy and you both play each other on 2 of those maps and you win 2-0
then you meet him in the final which is a bo7 you have already played 2 of the 7 maps
so you start 2-0 up with 5 maps to play..
not dumb at all to me..
|
Well we do know 1 thing -- it gave us possibly one of the worst MLG finals ever in Orlando
|
On October 17 2011 09:54 labbe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:52 darklight54321 wrote:On October 17 2011 09:49 Alvar wrote:On October 17 2011 09:44 0neder wrote:
You should have a poll:
Regardless of fairness, is the extended series more or less exciting for viewers and hyping the finals?
That would get better results I think, because it's fair. It's just not exciting. It is not even fair! People should learn to read the arguments against extended series. It has been pointed out so many times why it is unfair and it makes it completely random if you get that extra advantage of a win or if you do not. Randomness should not be there! How is it random? Player A beat player B, therefore player b should obviously treated as if he never lost to player A if they rematch within the same tournament? It is random in the sense that, Idra getting a 2-0 advantage in his first game in the championship bracket is completely out of his hands. So Idra is basically cheering for Boxer to win vs Stephano and SaSe, because if he does, then Idra gets a 2-0 advantage in his game. Now if you don't see a problem with that, then I guess we can just agree to disagree.
Idra got the advantage because he beat boxer earlier, thats not random at all. While boxer having the skills to get to the rematch point is "random", thats the only random factor in this. you might as well be complaining that boxer didn't get knocked out in the first place, that is the actual basis for your complain.
The basic problem of this is a pool play in tournament, rather then GSL style, and having a double elimination style tourney also. Both those factors lead to your true complaint. If there had been a ssteady "league" style game set that decided seeding, or a large tournament (without double elim) then you would be having this issue AT ALL. Instead of blaming the "unfairness" on what they have to do to compensate for the issue, just fix the issue itself.
|
On October 17 2011 09:49 Jochan wrote:
You guys are just whining because the loser of extended series was down, if it was 0:2 into 4:2 or 4:3 it would be "best" "incredible" "most spectacular" series ever....
Most people would say that's a normal bo7 score - first to 4. You can have amazing comebacks in a real bo7 match without the extended series rule.
Of course what you can't have is a 2 game grand final because after having the open tournament, pool play, winners bracket and losers bracket that would just be ridiculously anti climatic after all that build up right?
|
On October 17 2011 09:57 Fubi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:52 darklight54321 wrote:On October 17 2011 09:49 Alvar wrote:On October 17 2011 09:44 0neder wrote:
You should have a poll:
Regardless of fairness, is the extended series more or less exciting for viewers and hyping the finals?
That would get better results I think, because it's fair. It's just not exciting. It is not even fair! People should learn to read the arguments against extended series. It has been pointed out so many times why it is unfair and it makes it completely random if you get that extra advantage of a win or if you do not. Randomness should not be there! How is it random? Player A beat player B, therefore player b should obviously treated as if he never lost to player A if they rematch within the same tournament? Please, scroll back one or two pages and read the arguments.. player b is already treated from winning the first set by being placed further in the bracket. Stop using the same "winner needs an advantage" argument over and over again, it's already been argued to death.
just because people argue against it doesn't mean it's wrong. refer to my earlier comment for that.
On October 17 2011 09:57 KevinIX wrote:
Unfairly boring to the spectator.
this however, is an argument i'll accept :p
|
It's a little unfair to the person in the winners bracket side. It's a double elim style, which means you have to lose twice. If you beat the person 2-1 before, they only have to win 3 games to win 2 matches. It should start 2-0 everytime so the person coming from the winners bracket has to lose 2 FULL matches to be eliminated. just like everyone else does :/
|
On October 17 2011 10:00 Full.tilt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 09:49 Jochan wrote:
You guys are just whining because the loser of extended series was down, if it was 0:2 into 4:2 or 4:3 it would be "best" "incredible" "most spectacular" series ever.... Most people would say that's a normal bo7 score - first to 4. You can have amazing comebacks in a real bo7 match without the extended series rule.
the point is why do you have to rematch somebody on the same map you have already beat them on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
