|
On November 04 2012 15:50 raser wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 13:16 BronzeKnee wrote:On November 04 2012 13:06 TechNoTrance wrote:
I never understood why they hold on to extended series so tightly either despite overwhelming community opposition. It is the same reason that Blizzard doesn't listen to the community regarding maps (remember Slag Pits?) and took so long to put something on maps to prevent the ramp from being blocked by Pylons or Bunkers. Some companies just think they know better than their fans... they forgot the customer is always right. customer is always right.. are you kidding me? the customer is close to never right, and its rare to operate with that attitude in modern time anways
The customer IS always right when you talk about the majority of the clients, the individual client is a moron in a corporation's eyes. However the customers' money is always right and MLG won't change anythin' until they are desperate for money and bein' as sales don't seem to be goin' anywhere I don't see changes bein' made anywhere. So unless we boycott MLG, no free stream, no HD stream, no buyin' spectator or competitor passes; they won't change anythin' (most likely) and no amount of bitchin' will really do anythin'...most companies want a show of arms (for better lack of words) before they change anythin'.
Also regardin' the rule. Yes it is fair to the victor, that is the purpose of the rule. Its not fair to the loser and was never meant to be; it was designed to be an additional hardship for them to overcome as a form of redemption. As far as spectatin' it goes, it can be a bit annoyin' to watch and figure out where the series is at, but sometimes it provides more interestin' games (not always); at this point is really about the players not the rule.
|
I dislike it because it has a relatively poor entertainment value. The winner already has an advantage over the loser, who has to play a higher number of games thus exposing himself to larger chances for a loss.
|
mlg new bracket system guarantees a ton more extended series. Please get rid of it all together (extended series)
|
as long as there is a Losers bracket, extended series are a must, alot of people fail to realize this
|
It's fair but it's a fucking shit rule
|
Flash overcame Naniwa thanks to the extended series. It proves that Flash is better than Naniwa.
Naniwa has won his last game by cheesing with immortals and sentries push, which nobody could defend even with pulling scvs for a mass repair bunker... It was fairly one sided. He needed to have a cheap win to end it quiclky.
Then Flash had beat Hwangsin then reface Naniwa with a fair advantage in the extended series.
Great played by Flash.
|
On November 04 2012 19:52 Alaiz wrote:
Flash overcame Naniwa thanks to the extended series. It proves that Flash is better than Naniwa.
Naniwa has won his last game by cheesing with immortals and sentries push, which nobody could defend even with pulling scvs for a mass repair bunker... It was fairly one sided. He needed to have a cheap win to end it quiclky.
Then Flash had beat Hwangsin then reface Naniwa with a fair advantage in the extended series.
Great played by Flash.
And Flash won the last map with cheese. Whats your point?
|
On November 04 2012 17:51 Roxor9999 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 15:44 Rabiator wrote:On November 04 2012 15:13 fezvez wrote:
I was strongly against the extended series rule...
But in fact, I am now supporting it wholeheartedly. It's fair to the player, it just that it's not excellent from a spectator point of view. But I prefer fairness.
I'm really glad Leenock and Flash pulled it off, and I think that if they had just won a bo3, it would have been a "cheap" victory. How can the extended series be "fair"? Explain it to me, because the loser already has to play more games and is punished for that AND each match should start with a clean slate and not an advantage for one participant. Because everyone is treated equally.
They arent treated equally ... because the "match history" is taken into account ...
|
It is as fair as it can get. Basically what you( guys who are against it ) want here is the lesser player have more chances against his opponent. About if it's good or bad I don't know...but it is fair.
|
|
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
|
Not really bOneSeven. We want a player that loses to be punished once. You lose, you go to the losers bracket. You have to play twice as many games (or more) and if you're so damn good that twice as many people can't stop you then you get another crack at the guy that beat you the first time. There is no need to bring extended series into it. It's just a crappy format and has been widely accepted as a crappy format since MLG first used it in 2010.
They're the only tournament to use it and still use it. Here's a fine compromise: Best of 5 instead of Bo3 if players have played before. Or a better compromise: Do away with the whole stupid system that exists nowhere except MLG.
|
On November 04 2012 20:50 bOneSeven wrote:
It is as fair as it can get. Basically what you( guys who are against it ) want here is the lesser player have more chances against his opponent. About if it's good or bad I don't know...but it is fair.
Take Flash vs. Naniwa for example. Flash is by far the superior player. He deserved much better chances than he needed against Naniwa.
|
On November 04 2012 10:34 Fenrax wrote:
Moonglade vs. Violet and Leenock vs. Rain just drastically reduced my interest in this MLG. This is just so unfair...
But half a year later Extended Series is still there. And still most people I know think it is a shitty rule. And still players have to watch other players and think "oh I hope B wins because then I start the next round at 0-0, but if A wins this game that I have absolutely no influence on then I will start at 0-2."
What does Moonglade vs. Violet have anything to do with this? Sure, they had an extended series off Violet's 2-1 previous lead, but Violet 2-0ed Moonglade again anyway, making his total victory against Moonglade 4-1 ( http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Fall/Championship#Championship_Bracket ). Moonglade would have lost even if they had done a regular best of three, 0-2. Violet's just a much better player.
(That's not to say I like the extended series- because I don't- but it wouldn't have even mattered in VvM.)
On November 04 2012 21:05 Probe1 wrote:
Not really bOneSeven. We want a player that loses to be punished once. You lose, you go to the losers bracket. You have to play twice as many games (or more) and if you're so damn good that twice as many people can't stop you then you get another crack at the guy that beat you the first time. There is no need to bring extended series into it. It's just a crappy format and has been widely accepted as a crappy format since MLG first used it in 2010.
They're the only tournament to use it and still use it. Here's a fine compromise: Best of 5 instead of Bo3 if players have played before. Or a better compromise: Do away with the whole stupid system that exists nowhere except MLG.
I think that's a really good way of looking at it. No need for extra punishment, making it nearly impossible to recover.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On November 04 2012 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 10:34 Fenrax wrote:
Moonglade vs. Violet and Leenock vs. Rain just drastically reduced my interest in this MLG. This is just so unfair...
But half a year later Extended Series is still there. And still most people I know think it is a shitty rule. And still players have to watch other players and think "oh I hope B wins because then I start the next round at 0-0, but if A wins this game that I have absolutely no influence on then I will start at 0-2." What does Moonglade vs. Violet have anything to do with this? Sure, they had an extended series off Violet's 2-1 previous lead, but Violet 2-0ed Moonglade again anyway, making his total victory against Moonglade 4-1 ( http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Fall/Championship#Championship_Bracket ). Moonglade would have lost even if they had done a regular best of three, 0-2. Violet's just a much better player. (That's not to say I like the extended series- because I don't- but it wouldn't have even mattered in VvM.)
It started from a 2-0 for Violet, not 2-1. I posted this while the Extended series was played out so I couldn't know the end result. It was 1-1 (3-1) when I posted.
|
The player that won earned the advantage in the next series. its not like it was just given to him
|
On November 04 2012 21:50 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 21:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2012 10:34 Fenrax wrote:
Moonglade vs. Violet and Leenock vs. Rain just drastically reduced my interest in this MLG. This is just so unfair...
But half a year later Extended Series is still there. And still most people I know think it is a shitty rule. And still players have to watch other players and think "oh I hope B wins because then I start the next round at 0-0, but if A wins this game that I have absolutely no influence on then I will start at 0-2." What does Moonglade vs. Violet have anything to do with this? Sure, they had an extended series off Violet's 2-1 previous lead, but Violet 2-0ed Moonglade again anyway, making his total victory against Moonglade 4-1 ( http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012_MLG_Pro_Circuit/Fall/Championship#Championship_Bracket ). Moonglade would have lost even if they had done a regular best of three, 0-2. Violet's just a much better player. (That's not to say I like the extended series- because I don't- but it wouldn't have even mattered in VvM.) It started from a 2-0 for Violet, not 2-1. I posted this while the Extended series was played out so I couldn't know the end result. It was 1-1 (3-1) when I posted.
Ah, a reversal of the 2-0 and the 2-1, okay then. The point still stands though, right? It's not like Moonglade tied it 2-2 in extended series matches but still lost?
Although perhaps the players' mental states (and willingness to cheese or try different builds) would be different if they're already ahead a game, as opposed to if the score is reset.
|
On November 04 2012 21:55 mousez wrote:
The player that won earned the advantage in the next series. its not like it was just given to him
I think the main argument against the extended series is that there already exists an advantage for the player who won, and that advantage is not falling into the loser's bracket and having to play far more games. Fewer matches = fewer chances to lose.
To have a double disadvantage (the longer, more tiresome loser's bracket PLUS the extended series) makes it nearly impossible for a comeback to occur. This makes for a more boring tournament experience, more obvious outcomes, less happy players and audiences, and a worse competition overall. I (many of us?) think.
One very big advantage for winning a match is enough. No need for a double whammy. If the losing player has actually worked his way back up to playing against the winning player again, he deserves a score reset.
|
Sometimes the extended series deals with a winner's bracket player defeating a loser's bracket player. And in those cases the argument is able to be given weight I suppose.
But a lot of the time it's two people scrapping it out in loser's brackets. But thanks to the magic of bracket luck they may have faced on another before. Thus someone fighting through the loser's bracket has to win far more games than someone who is simply lucky enough to never play someone they had previously.
I find the extended series is simply confusing for a casual audience, promotes bracket luck and piles on the weight of concern and stress of the 'loser' in the extended series situations.
I'm less so against it when it comes to winner of bracket vs loser of bracket. Two loser's though?
|
On November 04 2012 20:21 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 17:51 Roxor9999 wrote:On November 04 2012 15:44 Rabiator wrote:On November 04 2012 15:13 fezvez wrote:
I was strongly against the extended series rule...
But in fact, I am now supporting it wholeheartedly. It's fair to the player, it just that it's not excellent from a spectator point of view. But I prefer fairness.
I'm really glad Leenock and Flash pulled it off, and I think that if they had just won a bo3, it would have been a "cheap" victory. How can the extended series be "fair"? Explain it to me, because the loser already has to play more games and is punished for that AND each match should start with a clean slate and not an advantage for one participant. Because everyone is treated equally. They arent treated equally ... because the "match history" is taken into account ...
They are the history of both players are taken into account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
