|
On October 19 2011 06:47 TheOGBlitzKrieg wrote:
it's really confusing to a newer crowd, and the dedicated crowd doesn't like it, why does it exist? a finals match should be an even, bo7 regardless if they've met before or not period. the losing player already had to work through the losers bracket to get where they are, the winning player got the advantage of not having to strain his body and mind by only playing a handful of games and being in the finals.
Personally, I don't even see why they consider it a losers bracket. The only 2 people that actually "drop" from winners to losers bracket via a lost match are the 2 players that lose their first Bo3 in the championship bracket.
That, or you lost somewhere in the open bracket.
|
I understand both sides, but I think that it makes every single game and match important, because you never know who you'll face again.
|
On October 18 2011 03:57 DarkRise wrote:
I think its fair and past matches should matter
Some players are smart and if they know they can't win their group they will try and place in an easier bracket
What the hell?
Do you even know what happens after pool-play at MLG?
|
The poll in the OP is very illuminating.
75% against is a clear message, let's hope MLG listens.
|
A different angle, shouldn't the players be the ones deciding what sort of rules they wanna play by? I mean, it's affecting them... Why should our (spectators) opinion matter in what MLG does or does not?
|
This rule makes no sense and has no place in a tournament for entertainment. If two players meet in the lower bracket of MLG, why should one player have to way outperform the other and turn around a 2-0/2-1 start? The winner of the previous series has already been eliminated from the upper bracket and the loser going into the series should not have to essentially "triple eliminate" the other just because he lost previously.
Looking at it from an entertainment standpoint it pretty much ruins a series as you can already tell who's going to win. Out of all of the extended series played in MLGs, the only reverse I've ever seen was MC v IdrA, and even then it was just a lot of cheese and a pretty boring series overall. This is only exacerbated in a finals match; the whole point of a finals match is the importance of the series and the anticipation to find out who wins, but why even bother when 2-3 of the games have already been played and one player is significantly closer to victory than the other.
|
I think its pretty fair. If you've already faced someone in the tourney and won, you deserve an advantage if you are forced to play again.
Also this poll is horribly out of date. If you want a valid slice of current opinion start a new one.
|
On October 19 2011 07:29 Sveet wrote:
I think its pretty fair. If you've already faced someone in the tourney and won, you deserve an advantage if you are forced to play again.
Also this poll is horribly out of date. If you want a valid slice of current opinion start a new one.
Why? Where is the logic in that. You are rewarded for your win already by not being eliminated from the upper bracket while the other person is. If I beat you in the first round and get to the second round, your punishment is getting thrown down to the lower bracket. If I lose the next round, I'm thrown down to the lower bracket still AHEAD of you in placement. You're required to beat someone else in the lower bracket to face me again. Basically, the person who lost initially simply gets fucked if you lose in the second round, but not fucked if the other person loses.
|
On October 19 2011 07:31 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 07:29 Sveet wrote:
I think its pretty fair. If you've already faced someone in the tourney and won, you deserve an advantage if you are forced to play again.
Also this poll is horribly out of date. If you want a valid slice of current opinion start a new one. Why? Where is the logic in that. You are rewarded for your win already by not being eliminated from the upper bracket while the other person is. If I beat you in the first round and get to the second round, your punishment is getting thrown down to the lower bracket. If I lose the next round, I'm thrown down to the lower bracket still AHEAD of you in placement. You're required to beat someone else in the lower bracket to face me again. Basically, the person who lost initially simply gets fucked if you lose in the second round, but not fucked if the other person loses.
I agree; the amount of extra games you have to play to climb your way out of the loser's bracket is disadvantage enough.
And, in the case of MLG Orlando, it made for an extremely fucking underwhelming finals.
|
On October 19 2011 07:35 roflSloth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 07:31 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 19 2011 07:29 Sveet wrote:
I think its pretty fair. If you've already faced someone in the tourney and won, you deserve an advantage if you are forced to play again.
Also this poll is horribly out of date. If you want a valid slice of current opinion start a new one. Why? Where is the logic in that. You are rewarded for your win already by not being eliminated from the upper bracket while the other person is. If I beat you in the first round and get to the second round, your punishment is getting thrown down to the lower bracket. If I lose the next round, I'm thrown down to the lower bracket still AHEAD of you in placement. You're required to beat someone else in the lower bracket to face me again. Basically, the person who lost initially simply gets fucked if you lose in the second round, but not fucked if the other person loses. I agree; the amount of extra games you have to play to climb your way out of the loser's bracket is disadvantage enough. And, in the case of MLG Orlando, it made for an extremely fucking underwhelming finals.
Raleigh wasn't much better I'm afraid. I can understand the fairness of having results carry over, but they leave the player who lost at and extreme disadvantage to the point that the series itself becomes boring.
|
It isn't that its "unfair" its that it is "boring and results in fewer total games". I want to watch players in the finals play a bunch of games!!
|
On October 19 2011 07:29 Sveet wrote:
I think its pretty fair. If you've already faced someone in the tourney and won, you deserve an advantage if you are forced to play again.
Also this poll is horribly out of date. If you want a valid slice of current opinion start a new one.
You already got an adventage by putting to other to way more matches then you when you meet again.
Compare the matches of huk/MC for instance.
Huk had a nice brake while MC was fighting for his spot in hard match after hard match without end.
Don't you think that is an adventage enough?
|
It made for a really boring Grand Finals last weekend.. Hopefully they get rid of it by the time Providence rolls around, which I'm optimistic for since MLG is really good when it comes to fixing these small things.
Keep rockin', MLG!!
|
This whole thing reminds me too much of BCS vs Playoffs in college football. Vast majority of fans want a playoff. Proposals have been made which show it can be more profitable than the BCS, yet the executives just stay set in their ways and wont budge. After a while, everyone's just sick of arguing about it so the status quo stays dug in, not because it's better or what more people want, but because no one even wants to talk about it any more.
|
Yet another MLG and this topic has to be brought up. It always ruins what could be an epic tournament for myself. There are such great games early on, then you get to the later stages and the whole ending is just so anti-climactic. It's honestly the worst rule in any sport or e-sport in my opinion.
Here's to hoping the final won't be ruined too badly this time around.
|
It's technically fair, but I think spectatorship is more important, thus it's not fair to the viewers, like me, who paid to get a better stream, to see someone lose a series because of this rule.
|
Never understood the arguement for this rule. Doesn't the winner of the first match already get enough of an advantage in that he advances into the tournament further and the loser then drops to the loser's bracket or whatever?
|
On March 26 2012 07:48 xShade wrote:
Yet another MLG and this topic has to be brought up. It always ruins what could be an epic tournament for myself. There are such great games early on, then you get to the later stages and the whole ending is just so anti-climactic. It's honestly the worst rule in any sport or e-sport in my opinion.
Here's to hoping the final won't be ruined too badly this time around.
Cry me a river. Id much prefer extended series rule to MKP going 4-4 va drg but drg winning cuz its a blank slate. And i want drg to win too
|
On October 19 2011 08:11 acgFork wrote:
It made for a really boring Grand Finals last weekend.. Hopefully they get rid of it by the time Providence rolls around, which I'm optimistic for since MLG is really good when it comes to fixing these small things.
Keep rockin', MLG!!
Finals of a double elimination tournament would either have to be extended series or two sets to one to be fair. So either way the finals of a double elimination tournament are somewhat anti-climactic.
So, I don't think removal of extended series would impact the finals too much, unless you want to remove double elimination altogether.
|
At least they changed finals to Bo9 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
