Continuation Rule has GOT to go

[MK Peanuts]

This was not the problem at MLG. seeding was! 3 Houston players in the bottom bracket? Showtime vs Starcharger first game? Me having to eliminate Showtime so soon? West coast players eliminating themselves so soon as well Cus of no seeding by region??? Silly to fly hundreds of miles just to play my training partner first round.

Seeding was a huge problem at Columbus. It's discouraging to hear that at Anaheim they didn't fix the problem.

 

[BillStickers]

After looking into the continuation rule more, I think that it should be removed, but at the same time, the continuation rule did not affect the results of the tournament whatsoever.

Here are some random things about it:

• The continuation rule is most potentially disadvantageous for the winner's bracket playerin the Grand Finals.
  • Specifically, the WB player is at the most disadvantage when a best-of-5 match between the two players resulted in a 3-2 win.
    • In this case, the winner has only a 1 point lead over the loser in a best-of-11 match.
    • The winner loses his/her "double elimination" benefit -- that is to say, he/she is not allowed the same one match loss that every other player in the tournament was allowed.
  • One could argue that if a quarter-finals match is that close, then the 1 point lead is all that the WB player deserves.
• If two players haven't previously faced-off in the tournament, then mostly-traditional double elimination rules apply.
• In the Grand Finals we saw yesterday, DJT had a bigger advantage than he would have had in a standard DE tournament.
  • In a traditional double elimination, he would have had to win 3 matches before Detroit, then win another 3.
  • In this setting, he only had to win 5 because he started off with 1 point from their previous match. (EDIT: this is incorrect. thanks garik16)

 

[mekane]

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.

exactly! the rule simply doesn't make sense.

 

[mekane]

the continuation rule actually makes sense in the grand finals scenario, where the player who won the first set has not lost yet. but not in the losers bracket, where the player who won the first set between the two is not properly penalized for also losing a set to some other player that sent him to the losers bracket. like garik16 said, you could effectively lose 2 sets and still be in the tournament, which is what happened with PL vs CD Jr and then DJT vs PL.

 

[garik16]

After looking into the continuation rule more, I think that it should be removed, but at the same time, the continuation rule did not affect the results of the tournament whatsoever.

Here are some random things about it:

• The continuation rule is most potentially disadvantageous for the winner's bracket playerin the Grand Finals.
  • Specifically, the WB player is at the most disadvantage when a best-of-5 match between the two players resulted in a 3-2 win.
    • In this case, the winner has only a 1 point lead over the loser in a best-of-11 match.
    • The winner loses his/her "double elimination" benefit -- that is to say, he/she is not allowed the same one match loss that every other player in the tournament was allowed.
  • One could argue that if a quarter-finals match is that close, then the 1 point lead is all that the WB player deserves.
• If two players haven't previously faced-off in the tournament, then mostly-traditional double elimination rules apply.
• In the Grand Finals we saw yesterday, DJT had a bigger advantage than he would have had in a standard DE tournament.
  • In a traditional double elimination, he would have had to win 3 matches before Detroit, then win another 3.
  • In this setting, he only had to win 5 because he started off with 1 point from their previous match.

This is wrong incidentally. In a normal double elim, Denzell would only need to win THREE before Detroit won three. Then that would reset the bracket, and they'd play another FT3. In continuation, Denzell had to win 5 before Detroit won 3.

So while Denzell had to win a lower total # of games, he had a much lower margin for error.

 

[BillStickers]

This is wrong incidentally. In a normal double elim, Denzell would only need to win THREE before Detroit won three. Then that would reset the bracket, and they'd play another FT3. In continuation, Denzell had to win 5 before Detroit won 3.

So while Denzell had to win a lower total # of games, he had a much lower margin for error.

Truth. My bad. I'll correct it.

 

[mekane]

After looking into the continuation rule more, I think that it should be removed, but at the same time, the continuation rule did not affect the results of the tournament whatsoever

Yes it did.

 

[garik16]

Yes it did.

Well, no we can't be sure about this. As i keep pointing out, the players would undoubtedly have played differently if not for continuation. (Also the guy who won the first match starts character locked in a continuation match). It's impossible to know if they'd play the same without the benefit of continuation giving winners a buffer.

 

[mekane]

Well, no we can't be sure about this. As i keep pointing out, the players would undoubtedly have played differently if not for continuation. (Also the guy who won the first match starts character locked in a continuation match). It's impossible to know if they'd play the same without the benefit of continuation giving winners a buffer.

In my opinion, the results would have been different without the continuation rule.

 

[Euphoric]

at the same time, PL and DJT was hella hype because of it.

I think it's completely silly to think there is no hype factor due to the Continuation Rule if you face the same player again, when you got bodies 3-0 the prior bout.

It's a matter of how the player handles themselves and the match, it's only unhype if the player doesn't know their opponent/MU.

CDJr vs REO Columbus was hype, because they knew how to play.

DJT vs PL was hype because PL knew how to play.

DJT vs Balln was unhype because well, DJT wasn't as good as he thought he was against Ballins Kabal.

Everyone was praising this rule last MLG, Dafuq happened here.

 

[Saint]

in a double elimination tournament, everyone gets to lose once. it ain't fair to make it to GF in losers and beat the guy that was undefeated once and take it home. it's double elim. he gets a chance to lose too.

Get the fuck out of here you have a total of 5 games to lose. You want to sit down with the guy for 3 days or what

 

[Enigma642]

Without the continuation rule, it is possible to go 5-3 against an opponent and be eliminated while the opponent moves on. That would suck.

 

[mekane]

Without the continuation rule, it is possible to go 5-3 against an opponent and be eliminated while the opponent moves on. That would suck.

You're not taking into consideration that it means you also lost a set to another player, while the opponent who moved on did not.

 

[GhosT]

What's different from a grand finals having losers bracket need to reset to win? At least you keep your wins from the first time u played. I guess I'm fine with the normal way but hey. The point is don't get bodied 0-3 it will come back to haunt you

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Green Tapatalk

 

[Medina4life]

The worst situation for the continuation rule may be in the situation we have not seen before. It's where two players meet in grand finals where they have never met before.What happens in this scenario? To me it seems that the person in winners has NO advantage what so ever against his oponent in losers. Both players need to win 6 matches to win 10,000 ad that's it. Equal for no reason...

But yea, there is no point in arguing about this rule anymore. Seeding is the worst part about MLG, however it didn't effect Dizzy and Wafflez this time because they were seeded as a result of their performance last MLG tourney.

 

[SNiPeR_MiKe]

I for one don't think the continuation rule is that big of deal. I've heard people bitch about bracket resetting too, so you will never make everyone happy with how you run the tourney.

I also think it's stupid that everyone is bitching about the continuation rule, but no one is applauding how MLG does their matches first to 3, when at normal touney's it's best of 2 of 3. Why has no one mentioned this? I love that MLG does first to 3 because it gives people more chances to come back if they happen to just blow it 2 matches, and can come back in the 3rd, much more hype.

I'm not saying the continuation rule is the BEST, but it's definitely not all hell breaking loose. Certain scenario's people would favor it, and certain ones people will hate it. Can't please everyone, and beggars can't be choosers.

 

[SrirachaSC2]

The worst situation for the continuation rule may be in the situation we have not seen before. It's where two players meet in grand finals where they have never met before.What happens in this scenario? To me it seems that the person in winners has NO advantage what so ever against his oponent in losers. Both players need to win 6 matches to win 10,000 ad that's it. Equal for no reason...

In that situation, they just do a bracket reset. Match format, rule 4:

http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/competitions/36#event_103_event-format

Edit: actually, not a regular bracket reset; they do a FT3 then apply continuation if necessary.

 

[Gesture Required Ahead]

which is in North America

Touché...

 

[STORMS]

New Kabal match-up chart

Kabal vs MLG's Continuation Rule, 4-6... deal with it.

 

[HGTV DrFlash44]

With games going on back to back there is no time in between for the commentators to discuss the match which is kinda needed. If the sponsors want more time they could just make is so that the previous looser has to reset the first of 3 or 5 depending on where it is in the tournament or just make it so both players have 0 and its first to 4 or 5 or the previous winner has 1 and the previous looser has 0 and then first to 4 or 5

 

[Zoidberg747]

I really think this rule makes sense if you really think about it. Lets say you get to the finals and one player starts 3-0 in a first to 6. The player down wins 5 games, but also loses three and loses the finals. So if you just count the finals, the count would be 5-3 to the second player. However, if you add those three losses from the previous game, in reality the first player won 6 and lost 5, therefore actually winning the overall series between those two players. This is why at least in that situation I like the rule, because it means the better performance overall is going to win.

 

[NariTuba]

Some of the points Ive read in this thread against the continuation rule are valid, but I dont know how you can say things were boring or unhype because of it... the tournament was AWESOME to watch

 

[Prinz]

In my HUMBLE opinion, you guys are a bunch of whiners. Continuation rule? Who the fuck cares. It doesn't matter if a player had 1 or 3 opportunities to win. Once a good player had the opportunity to win and lost, it's only on him and none other. A loss is a loss and good players know it. The only thing remaining now is to do the aftermath, correct the mistakes and train to not lose the next opportunity.
Also, MLG is a corporate thing, which means it can be biased, controlled, and no offence to 16-bit, but REO losing to him 0-3 looks suspicious to me.

 

[THTB]

It was 3-1.

 

[Prinz]