Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

Continuation Rule has GOT to go

Tim Static

Tim Static

Adminerator
This is probably the most asinine rule I've ever seen for fighting games at any tourney, and MLG is the only tourney that does it. It just doesnt work for MK, and Im sure it doesnt for KoF or SC.

I read something a very smart man tweeted tonight and it hits the nail on the head:

Ponder said:
It's still a shame that you can run a set 5-2 and still lose. It throws 20 years of meta game out the window.
Click to expand...
I couldnt agree more.

Now Sabin (Arturo Sanchez) defended it with saying it makes the match sets longer with fills up time and makes sponsors happy, but there has to be a way to remove the continuation rule AND still make sponsors happy. And I know how to fix it:

Have 2 setups ready with a match waiting to start as soon as one is done. BAM.

Discuss.
 
G

garik16

Noob
From the other thread:

Continuation needs to go.

For the record - we can't say for sure that CD Jr would've beaten PL 3-2 in Losers Semis had there been no continuation.....i imagine PL's play would've been different had he been without a 3 game buffer. We similarly can't say PL would've beaten Denzell.

But the end result is plain stupid. You can't afford to take chances in winners anymore or hide back tech, because god forbid you face that same opponent later you start in a huge hole. Learn from your mistakes in winners? Too bad - those same mistakes now cost you double. And of course the rule doesn't even make sense....the player who loses in winners has to win 4-6 games in losers in a non grand finals match when that happens in no other circumstance.

Oh and all hype is lost because players face insurmountable leads.

The rule won't be changed at MLG. Starcraft players don't like it and MLG keeps it, and Starcraft has been for a while MLG's bread and butter. But it's a horrible horrible rule. Because of it you have no time to learn from your mistakes in a set because if you fail to learn in the first game, you end up in a huge hole. Nice.

Fortunately, GFs didn't take continuation into account.
 
SunnyD

SunnyD

24 Low Hat!
I dont understand why anyone would think that the continuation rule is anything but nonsense. What is the benefit?
 
Dark_Rob

Dark_Rob

Noob
Ive never liked it, in fact I was vehemently opposed to it, but I was told they absolutely would not change it no matter how much we screamed about it, so I shut up.
 
Zoidberg747

Zoidberg747

My blades will find your heart
SunnyD said:
I dont understand why anyone would think that the continuation rule is anything but nonsense. What is the benefit?
Click to expand...
Happiness of the sponsors I guess. I still do not have a problem with it, because it doesnt seem to affect much until someone faces the person that 3-0d them. IMO if you dominate someone like that and have to face them again they should have an advantage. Some people prefer people to pay for getting 3-0d, instead of getting to start fresh and pretending like the old one didnt happen. I personally dont mind it and would not miss it. but I dont think it had much of an effect on this tourney at all, save for MAYBE Denzel and PL(Still think Denzell would have won regardless.
 
Jimmypotato

Jimmypotato

Mid Tier
Dark_Rob said:
Ive never liked it, in fact I was vehemently opposed to it, but I was told they absolutely would not change it no matter how much we screamed about it, so I shut up.
Click to expand...
This, There giving away 10K for first place, they can do what they want. PL ran it back to 5-5 wich made that last match super fricken hype, it is dumb. But it's there, and theres nothing we can do. Bitch enough, and they'll be like, see ya later guys.
 
Relaxedstate

Relaxedstate

PTH|RM Relaxedstate
Mehhh was still hype. I think the rule is good with this much money on the line. Denzell out-performed PL. I kinda like that his 3-0 counted for something later. Makes sure the best player takes home what they deserve...even if some of the hype is lost
Edit: and of course PLs runback was the definition of hype...only possible with continuation lol
 
S

SrirachaSC2

Noob
SunnyD said:
I dont understand why anyone would think that the continuation rule is anything but nonsense. What is the benefit?
Click to expand...
The logic is that if you e.g. go 5-3 in overall games (3-0, 2-3) against someone, they shouldn't advance over you.

However, today's matches are pretty clear examples of how it breaks down in actual tournaments.

This is not a case of Starcraft rules being misapplied to fighting games, either. The Starcraft community hates it, and no one seems to know why MLG is so dedicated to it. For reference:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=173244
http://ww.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/rcv9k/dear_mlg_please_stop_the_extended_series_system/
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1213111391
 
G

garik16

Noob
SrirachaSC2 said:
The logic is that if you e.g. go 5-3 in overall games (3-0, 2-3) against someone, they shouldn't advance over you.

However, today's matches are pretty clear examples of how it breaks down in actual tournaments.

This is not a case of Starcraft rules being misapplied to fighting games, either. The Starcraft community hates it, and no one seems to know why MLG is so dedicated to it. For reference:

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=173244
http://ww.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/rcv9k/dear_mlg_please_stop_the_extended_series_system/
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1213111391
Click to expand...
The difference is that MLG is looking at it wrong. If you lose 3-0 to someone in winners, you haven't lost to them 3 games, you've lost 1 set against them. If you run it back in losers, well you wind up going 1-1 in sets against that player. And that second player has no lost 2 sets. Hence he should be out, not get another chance just because he winds up against a player he faced in winners before.
 
T3rror

T3rror

Noob
If they won't change the rule for StarCraft then there is no way they're going to change it for the fighters. Sometimes it makes for good matches as we have just seen not too long ago, but most of the time its putting one player at a big disadvantage with a needle in a hay stack chance of coming back. I think it should be gone and I rather have MLG go with Static's idea.
 
G

garik16

Noob
Relaxedstate said:
Mehhh was still hype. I think the rule is good with this much money on the line. Denzell out-performed PL. I kinda like that his 3-0 counted for something later. Makes sure the best player takes home what they deserve...even if some of the hype is lost
Edit: and of course PLs runback was the definition of hype...only possible with continuation lol
Click to expand...
You know what also would've been hype? CD Jr running it back against PL instead of being in a 3-0 hole. Or PL running it back totally on Denzell.

Denzell's 3-0 did count for something later in a normal double elim bracket - it KEPT HIM OUT OF LOSERS at the time. Put it this way, Denzell got to GFs largely due to the continuation rule giving him an edge over PL to start. If PL had lost to CD Jr, Denzell wouldn't have gotten that edge over CD Jr. In other words, Denzell was rewarded with an extra benefit due to the play of others. which makes no sense.
 
Relaxedstate

Relaxedstate

PTH|RM Relaxedstate
It is just dfferen't. Not absurd. It is the most fair to the players. It also created some of the best hype I have seen to date. Could go either way and that is okay. If detroit 3-0 Denzell that would have been just as unhype
 
Relaxedstate

Relaxedstate

PTH|RM Relaxedstate
garik16 said:
You know what also would've been hype? CD Jr running it back against PL instead of being in a 3-0 hole. Or PL running it back totally on Denzell.

Denzell's 3-0 did count for something later in a normal double elim bracket - it KEPT HIM OUT OF LOSERS at the time. Put it this way, Denzell got to GFs largely due to the continuation rule giving him an edge over PL to start. If PL had lost to CD Jr, Denzell wouldn't have gotten that edge over CD Jr. In other words, Denzell was rewarded with an extra benefit due to the play of others. which makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Denzell was rewarded an extra benefit because of himself! lol He 3-0 PL earlier!! what are you talking about. The Denzell PL match was 10x more hype because of the rule. Yeah PL might have run it back in a first to 3 or 5 w/e...but watching that potential come back was way better. Way better brah
 
BillStickers

BillStickers

Do not touch me again.
Tim Static said:
Grand Finals were hella lame because of this absurd rule. period.
Click to expand...
Wait, what? Even with the reset rules in place, the same outcome would have happened. Detroit won 6-2, which would have translated to the same 3-2 in the reset scenario. The only difference that the continuation rule makes is that the winning player is given some extra time to dick around, as we saw in the Denzel vs. PL match.

What people don't seem to realize is that Detroit went all rounds without losing a set. That's a huge deal in a double elimination setting (keeping in mind that he didn't get the same "second chance 'advantage'" that Denzel, PL, CDjr, et. al. were afforded), and because of that, I think it's perfectly fair that Detroit should be allowed the extra win buffer.

I don't even see how continuation rules make sponsors happy since it usually makes sets shorter anyway.
 
G

garik16

Noob
Relaxedstate said:
Denzell was rewarded an extra benefit because of himself! lol He 3-0 PL earlier!! what are you talking about. The Denzell PL match was 10x more hype because of the rule. Yeah PL might have run it back in a first to 3 or 5 w/e...but watching that potential come back was way better. Way better brah
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. To get into Grand finals, you need to win losers finals. Normally to do that you need to win 3 games before your opponent. That would've been the case had CD Jr beaten PL.

Instead, because CD JR lost to PL, Denzell got to win 3 games before PL could win 6. So Denzell got an edge because CD Jr couldn't run it back against PL.

Remember, winning in winners bracket is its OWN REWARD - you stay in winners bracket. Loser in winners bracket is its own punishment - you have to play additional matches to get to grand finals (double as many actually) with little margin for error. There's no need to pile on an extra punishment to the loser.
 
exyle

exyle

Noob
It's not the greatest idea, but it's not that bad. Example: you use all your tricks/setups to beat your opponent 3-0. Your opponent will learn and counter everything next time you meet.
You should be compensated for giving up all your tactics.

But, yea, it does kill hype sometimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.