MLG extended Series Poll - Page 52

On October 17 2011 12:21 vol_ wrote:
I would rather see extended series removed and have MLG make the later rounds bo5

On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:

MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1

If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won.

On October 17 2011 12:51 babo213 wrote:


That's ridiculous way to look at it imo. It's like say in the World Cup group play Brazil lost to France then they meet again France was ahead 2-0 or whatever the goal differential was. It's stupid and pointless. At most it should be a 1-0 lead in a best of 7 and the finals should be best of 5 anyway regardless.
Group play games have less pressure and importance why should the games that truly matter not be on an even footing?

On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:

MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1

If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won.

On October 17 2011 13:56 Spaceneil8 wrote:

The thing is that those games happen very far apart while MLG happens over a weekend. MLG's are basically one continuous play session so the previous series should be taken into account.

On October 17 2011 13:57 TheToast wrote:


That's not how it works, in your example HuK would have won. Essentially the extended series adds a maximum of 4 extra games onto the previous bo3. In your example, if HuK beats MC 2-0 then in the final HuK only needs to pick up 2 games to win. MC has to pick up 4.

It really does make things fair as every game counts for something. But many people are saying it takes away some of the excitement from the finals, and I do believe they have a point. I really like the extended series rule, but tournament final match-up should just be a bo7 straight up IMO.

On October 17 2011 16:42 Oceaniax wrote:
Regardless of whether or not you think it's "fair" or not, it makes for far, far less compelling games to watch. Knowing someone is down 0-2 coming into a match just skews the match so in favor of the previous victor it just isn't very compelling to watch (MOST of the time).

On October 17 2011 10:54 Fenrax wrote:
It is just a stupid shitty rule. It is a) unfair and b) creates horrendously boring best-of series'.
Winner already had a giant advantage for his win in the earlier rounds and if the other player fights his way through a lower bracket he deserves equal odds again. Nothing else to say about it. It sucks. Get rid of it.

On October 17 2011 12:44 Bijan wrote:
Picture this scenario:

MC loses to HuK 0 - 2
MC fights his way to the finals for an extended series
HuK loses the finals, 2 - 1

If that whole series were to be looked at as a Bo5, HuK should have won. The extended series works to ensure that the winning player is always the clear victor by virtue of total sets won.

On October 17 2011 16:33 Sirvantes7 wrote:



Well, in "normal" double elimination tournaments, the loser bracket's winner has to defeat the winner's bracket winner in 2 best of whatever the final match is. (In MGL's case 2 Bo3s). That is the fairest possible way to do this without screwing the lowers with "extended series, and it makes sure that it is true to the double elimination scheme.

I have no clue why on earth people think that the extended series is more fair than this.

On October 17 2011 17:48 Talin wrote:


The part where you say "if that was a BO5 HuK would have won" is the part that doesn't make sense about this argument. Because it isn't a BO5. It's a BO3. Why would you look at a previous series which is already over? You're referring to past results and counting them twice.

What happens in REALITY is that HuK won 1 series in pool play, and MC won 1 series in the finals. And it makes sense that winning in the finals will be more important... because it's the fucking finals.

On October 17 2011 17:37 zul wrote:

you are soo wrong. I don`t know if you watched the series of IdrA vs Boxer, but Boxers Comeback from a 0:3 (to tie it up to 3:3) was nothing short but epic. AND the rule is fair. I don`t know why people hate on this - it makes MLG special. In case you don`t see why it is fair, I will explain it.

First of all, the rule aplies for everyone. Second, Imagine a scenario between player A and player B. Player A wins 2:0 over player B in earlier stages of the playoffs and advances undefeated to the grand finals. Player B goes down to the lower/losers Bracket and wins the rest of his matches to reach the grand finals as well. Now player B wins 2:0 and therefore the tournament. How would this be fair, if both players have lost the same amout of games and are tied in games (in direct comparison). Extended series make sure, the winner of the first match has the advantage he deserves, when the opponents meet in the later stages. It does NOT produce boring matches - it is the other way around. It gives more importance to all the matches (including early ones), because you never know if you will meet each other in later stages of the tournament and therefore you better make sure to lead the extended series.

On October 17 2011 17:37 zul wrote:
First of all, the rule aplies for everyone. Second, Imagine a scenario between player A and player B. Player A wins 2:0 over player B in earlier stages of the playoffs and advances undefeated to the grand finals. Player B goes down to the lower/losers Bracket and wins the rest of his matches to reach the grand finals as well. Now player B wins 2:0 and therefore the tournament. How would this be fair, if both players have lost the same amout of games and are tied in games (in direct comparison).