|
Being pissed at something being unfair is far for being entertaining. This is not a game like Wipe-out when you laugh at people, it's a fucking tournament. Not a entertainment show. The people who watch tournaments are entertained by competition and the fairness of it.
edit @ "he won on the long run" : You are totally not understanding the reasoning behind making a double elim tournament. What we are arguing about here, is whether the modifications made to the standard double elim tournament are fun, interesting, and fair. Losing 3-4 total to one guy while having beaten every other one placed on your road then being out is not exactly what I call being destroyed and being inconsistent, and yet it can get you out of BOTH brackets, while the other player, which you reward for his "consistency" has won one box, lost one box, tied one box, and is still continuing his run.
Is he consistent in your opinion ?
|
On November 08 2010 09:31 Nouar wrote:
Being pissed at something being unfair is far for being entertaining. This is not a game like Wipe-out when you laugh at people, it's a fucking tournament. Not a entertainment show. The people who watch tournaments are entertained by competition and the fairness of it.
Even if you factor out the terrible delay/break, that final was very anti climatic in terms of competition because of the format.
They should switch to bo5 for the last few games imo.
|
On November 08 2010 09:30 Zechs wrote:@PROJECTILE (i broke the quotes T_T) Not to be too pedantic, but i think a tournament's design CAN make it more exciting. To me, it's about how artificial that excitement is. For example, single elimination Bo1 from start to finish would be insanely tense, but it pushes it too far. I don't think anyone would genuinely think a tournament like that was a good idea. But look at other sports: which tournaments bring the most spectators? The world cup (which has its own flaws in terms of fairness, btw: seeding is very artificial) is group play -> single elim -> one-off final game, with no extraneous bullshit. However, if you just meant that it's more or less exciting based on what the players do in the games, then... yeah, obviously 
Definitely. The superbowl in football is a great example of them crowning the not-so-aptly named "world champions" even though winning it is hardly a sign of being the best team. Nonetheless the NFL playoffs can be quite exciting.
I'm not against exciting things, I just don't want the facade that things are competitively fair when they're run that way.
|
|
|
It is fair but i dont think they should use it.
|
Please read the edit on my previous post at the top of the page, projectile. And i'll stop here, it's late and I work. Will read your next answer but not answer myself. I just hope you'll understand that the consistency you think defines good players is not what's brought up by these extended matches.
|
This is a pretty minor issue with the format, 1 downvote loser picks had way more impact than extended series. A lot of series went favored race wins based on the first map, loser picks favored map for his race and wins, loser picks favored map for his race and wins 2-1.
|
On November 08 2010 09:42 Jaeger wrote:
This is a pretty minor issue with the format, 1 downvote loser picks had way more impact than extended series. A lot of series went favored race wins based on the first map, loser picks favored map for his race and wins, loser picks favored map for his race and wins 2-1.
There are usually vetoes from players, to remove the more imba maps. If there's still any left, and that defines the results, map pool is shitty, thank Blizzard.
|
Remember the final of MLG DC: Select lost two quick and dull games in the Grand Finals, and it was over in 20 minutes. I know that technically this was fair, but a Bo3 for a finals still just makes them anticlimactic.
|
I really hope they switch the format next year. Every MLG Final has been anticlimactic thus far. -_-
|
The rules are fine.
It's supposed to be double elimination, if a guy that never lost in the winners bracket gets to the finals, its logical to make the guy coming from losers bracket (whos already been knocked down once) to knock him down twice.
In essence, the guy in the loser's bracket is trying to knock the guy from winners bracket into the loser's bracket, and THEN have a true final.
Otherwise it would be unfair for the guy who went undefeated in a series to face guy who lost once in an equal footing.
|
On November 08 2010 09:50 scion wrote:
The rules are fine.
It's supposed to be double elimination, if a guy that never lost in the winners bracket gets to the finals, its logical to make the guy coming from losers bracket (whos already been knocked down once) to knock him down twice.
In essence, the guy in the loser's bracket is trying to knock the guy from winners bracket into the loser's bracket, and THEN have a true final.
Otherwise it would be unfair for the guy who went undefeated in a series to face guy who lost once in an equal footing.
thats not what this rule is.
with this rule,
Player A beats player B
some time passes
Player A loses 0-2
Player B wins 2-0
next match is Player A vs Player B again
Player A loses 2-3
but it counts as a win for player A ???
that is not fair at all.
so essentially Player A in the last 2 matches went 0-2, 2-3. And yet he moves forward in the tournament.
|
I don't like it - while I'm not against the winner's bracket player having an advantage, I think doing an extended series (whether that be 2xBO3, or carrying a score over) gives too much advantage and stacks the odds way against the loser - to the point where it's not good to watch.
Even without this, the winner would already have an advantage - fewer matches played so better rested, can hide his best builds for the final, and simply the fact that since he's not lost yet, he's probably better (or in better form) than the LB finalist. Giving an additional, artificial advantage to the WB player usually ends up in a stomping with little/no chance of an upset.
|
On November 08 2010 09:50 scion wrote:
The rules are fine.
It's supposed to be double elimination, if a guy that never lost in the winners bracket gets to the finals, its logical to make the guy coming from losers bracket (whos already been knocked down once) to knock him down twice.
In essence, the guy in the loser's bracket is trying to knock the guy from winners bracket into the loser's bracket, and THEN have a true final.
Otherwise it would be unfair for the guy who went undefeated in a series to face guy who lost once in an equal footing.
Posts like this astound me. Do you read anything about the rule before posting? At all?
|
On November 08 2010 09:44 Mothxal wrote:
Remember the final of MLG DC: Select lost two quick and dull games in the Grand Finals, and it was over in 20 minutes. I know that technically this was fair, but a Bo3 for a finals still just makes them anticlimactic.
Then all they have to do is change the finals to a Bo5 or Bo7. With the possibility of it going to another Bo5 or Bo7 if the person in losers wins the first Bo5 or Bo7.
|
i don't really like the extended series mainly because as a spectator, i feel cheated out of games that are attributed to previous matches that really shouldn't have any bearing on the current series and if i was playing with that disadvantage i'd feel cheated because i'm being penalized for a series i'm not even currently playing in, especially if i'm being penalized for a previous series in which i lost due to some cheesy timing attack in which the winner, while having won, didn't really demonstrate that they were the better player.
the earlier games decided earlier bracket placements. as long as you win your series and you move on, that should be it. the winner of the previous series has the advantage of being able to lose some time later, and as long as they keep winning, will have to play less and less matches to get to the finals. if they ended up losing to someone else later, got sent to losers, and was matched against a previous opponent, they still have the advantage of having played less games to get that far in the bracket.
i see no reason to give winners more advantages than less matches needed to play, especially since getting the extended series advantage is essentially a form of unpredictable luck. you might say, 'if the previous loser is really better he should still win,' but i can say just as easily 'if the previous winner is really better, he should be able to win with a clean slate series like he did the last time and like he would have to do in every single other tournament.'
|
It is fair but it is stupid. Just having the possibility of having a "2 game" final (as just happened) is ridiculous.
In MLG DC we have seen a player playing a ton of games going in to the final exhausted. It is fair because they all have the same rights, but it is retarded for a RTS.
|
On November 08 2010 10:01 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 09:50 scion wrote:
The rules are fine.
It's supposed to be double elimination, if a guy that never lost in the winners bracket gets to the finals, its logical to make the guy coming from losers bracket (whos already been knocked down once) to knock him down twice.
In essence, the guy in the loser's bracket is trying to knock the guy from winners bracket into the loser's bracket, and THEN have a true final.
Otherwise it would be unfair for the guy who went undefeated in a series to face guy who lost once in an equal footing. Posts like this astound me. Do you read anything about the rule before posting? At all?
what? I don't think you understand the rules yourself, how does that not make sense?
Don't accuse before actually knowing the rules, or reading/comprehending my post.
It's double elimination, you are supposed to get 2 chances in the tournament. If it were just 1 fair bo5 or whatever at the final, it wouldn't be fair to the guy coming from the winner's bracket.
If he'd lost at the quarters or semis, he'd get another chance at the tournament. But if he loses at the final once hes gone? Don't you see? If it worked like that, the guy coming from the winner's bracket is punished by being 'exception' to the rule in that he only gets to face 1 elimination round in a double elimination tournament.
|
On November 08 2010 10:16 scion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 10:01 Pyrthas wrote:On November 08 2010 09:50 scion wrote:
The rules are fine.
It's supposed to be double elimination, if a guy that never lost in the winners bracket gets to the finals, its logical to make the guy coming from losers bracket (whos already been knocked down once) to knock him down twice.
In essence, the guy in the loser's bracket is trying to knock the guy from winners bracket into the loser's bracket, and THEN have a true final.
Otherwise it would be unfair for the guy who went undefeated in a series to face guy who lost once in an equal footing. Posts like this astound me. Do you read anything about the rule before posting? At all? what? I don't think you understand the rules yourself, how does that not make sense? Don't accuse before actually knowing the rules, or reading/comprehending my post. It's double elimination, you are supposed to get 2 chances in the tournament. If it were just 1 fair bo5 or whatever at the final, it wouldn't be fair to the guy coming from the winner's bracket. If he'd lost at the quarters or semis, he'd get another chance at the tournament. But if he loses at the final once hes gone? Don't you see? If it worked like that, the guy coming from the winner's bracket is punished by being 'exception' to the rule in that he only gets to face 1 elimination round in a double elimination tournament.
Yeah, that's why MLG makes sure to give the WB player a second chance if the grand final is a rematch and the LB player wins the extended series. Oh, wait...
|
Double Elimination is pretty questionable to me in general for entertainment value and the uneven finals problem is one of the main reasons. Another being it's just hard to follow the tournament, the bracket is so convoluted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
