EPTOn March 15 2015 03:47 Faruko wrote:
get rid of useless lower bracket, no advantage
problem solved
get rid of useless lower bracket, no advantage
problem solved
You'll get rid of amazing storylines at the same time.
Winner's Advantage in Grand Finals - Page 3
| Blogs > motbob |
|
Oktyabr
Singapore2234 Posts
You'll get rid of amazing storylines at the same time. | ||
|
Moustache Cash Stash
United States222 Posts
On March 15 2015 16:21 Badjas wrote: Tournaments should get rid of winner's advantage. Because people complain about it. Alternatively they should play it out like this: The upper bracket final's winner (team A) should play against the lower bracket final's winner (team B) in a BO3 or BO5. If team B loses, they have lost twice and should be eliminated, team A is the winner. If team A loses, both team A and B have lost once in the playoffs. Now they are even. A BO1 or BO3 should be played to see who will lose a second time, so that a winner can be declared. (There are already three "finals" named. UB finals, LB finals, grand finals... this finals should have a proper name. And ultimate final isn't it I think.) If you support this concept but are against winner bracket's advantage... BO3 grand finals followed by BO1 "ultimate finals" is exactly the same as BO5 with 1 game winner's advantage, save for presentation (and a rest period that would be influential actually). This would be the most preferred method for Grand Finals, but I doubt Dota 2 could pull it off due to the time constraints and too many games in a row. However, a BO1 couldn't be used for the so called "ultimate finals." Say the winner's bracket team loses the first BO3 2-0. They could just win the BO1 and be crowned champs, but they have an overall record of 1-2 in the grand finals. And I doubt anyone would be happy with this. So in an ideal situation, we could run it with potentially 2 BO3 or BO5, but that would be too difficult logistically. Game tournaments that do this though, like most Smash tourneys, turn out pretty well. | ||
| ||
