EPTThis system gives no advantage at all to the WB team in the grand finals
Na`Vi Wins WePlay Season 2 over Alliance - Page 4
| Forum Index > Dota 2 General |
|
pellejohnson
United States1931 Posts
This system gives no advantage at all to the WB team in the grand finals | ||
|
NIIINO
Slovakia1320 Posts
On November 11 2013 22:42 pellejohnson wrote: Despite liking Navi and disliking Alliance I can't help but feel that this format is totally unfair. I remember back in the old days of counterstrike winnerbrackets was common and the winner advantage was pretty much always only having to win a single bo3 versus the loser bracket team who had to win two bo3. This system gives no advantage at all to the WB team in the grand finals CS is different. You got teams that are great on some maps but I really do like this in dota as long as it is Bo5. Im ok with this format- | ||
nimdil
Poland3748 Posts
On November 11 2013 22:53 NIIINO wrote: CS is different. You got teams that are great on some maps but I really do like this in dota as long as it is Bo5. Im ok with this format- The normal double elimination format worked for CS (apparently), SC:BW (some MSLs IIRC), SC2... only Dota2 has problems (and maybe LoL - no idea). At the very least winner should have 1 point advantage (as in StarLadder). Simply this is not a double elimination bracket - this is broken format. | ||
|
ReignSupreme.
Australia4123 Posts
Giving a team a 1 map advantage or even worse, an entire series is what's stupid. Christ am I the only one who remembers the uproar over MLG? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 11 2013 23:00 nimdil wrote: The normal double elimination format worked for CS (apparently), SC:BW (some MSLs IIRC), SC2... only Dota2 has problems (and maybe LoL - no idea). At the very least winner should have 1 point advantage (as in StarLadder). Simply this is not a double elimination bracket - this is broken format. Viewers in general do not like a finals where the one sudden has an automatic advantage. MLGs issues with extended series showed this. You are correct that the format is not a true double elimination, but that choice is solely for the viewers and the idea of a "clean" finals. The teams were aware of this, so I don't see an issue. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
| ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On November 11 2013 23:15 ReignSupreme. wrote: Coming from the winners bracket is an advantage in itself, you play less games, meaning you get more opportunities to view the strategies of the team that you will face in the finals as they have to play 1 or more extra series. Giving a team a 1 map advantage or even worse, an entire series is what's stupid. Christ am I the only one who remembers the uproar over MLG? Extended series is not the same thing as wb advantage. The advantage makes it more fair but destroys hype, so I prefer the somewhat unfair format. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On November 12 2013 00:51 hifriend wrote: Extended series is not the same thing as wb advantage. The advantage makes it more fair but destroys hype, so I prefer the somewhat unfair format. Extended series is special because it is both "unfair" and it kills hype. | ||
|
Romitelli
Brunei Darussalam566 Posts
On November 11 2013 22:21 yeeshdontjudgeme wrote: The whole point of a double elimination tournament is so that every team that loses out has to be eliminated twice, aka lose two series. By not giving Alliance any advantage in the Finals, Alliance was only eliminated once in the double elimination tournament not twice hence that isn't double elimination. See the logic there? If the tournament was played normally, there would've been a second series or Alliance would have at least had a 1-0 advantage leading into the Bo5. It's double elimination up to the Grand Finals. And not losing until the Grand Finals is a pretty considerable advantage, since the team plays less games, can save some pocket strats if needed, and so on. Considering the Grand Finals are designed to be the tourney's apex, it's generally a bad idea to kill the hype by giving one of the teams an advantage. Hell, there's a reason MLG was pressured to drop the extended series format in its SC2 tourneys... | ||
|
triforks
United States370 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 12 2013 03:03 triforks wrote: still kinda lame that alliance was 4-3 against navi but still lost. It happens all the time in other sports. Teams making it to the play offs and beating teams with better recon da during the season. At the end of the day it was only that best of 5 that mattered in the end. | ||
|
nimdil
Poland3748 Posts
On November 12 2013 01:16 Romitelli wrote: It's double elimination up to the Grand Finals. And not losing until the Grand Finals is a pretty considerable advantage, since the team plays less games, can save some pocket strats if needed, and so on. Considering the Grand Finals are designed to be the tourney's apex, it's generally a bad idea to kill the hype by giving one of the teams an advantage. Hell, there's a reason MLG was pressured to drop the extended series format in its SC2 tourneys... Extended series has nothing to do with it. Nobody was complaining about properly handling double elimination bracket - extended series was unfair because it make unfair advantage for two players when they met again in lower bracket. Also MLG worked around the problem differently, essentially running two separate double elimination tournaments with winner of each of subtournaments reaching grand final. Also I don't get why proper double elimination kills hype for the finals. There is underdog team and the undefeated team. The underdog has to make up for his loss. I don't see any less hype in it. On the contrary. The complete hype killer is when the team loses the tournament in such curious circumstances like Alliance just did. | ||
|
_SpiRaL_
Afghanistan1636 Posts
On November 11 2013 16:21 k0pf wrote: Its a bit funny how phrasing changes some things. I would say Na'vi had the chance of getting into the finals due to an extra game. It wasnt a punishment at all. After all they LOST to A, didnt they? And saying they both lost one game so its equal is kinda funny,too. Coz one is first and the other one is second ;-) Dont get me wrong. I dont like extended series but a winners advantage should exsist in an dubble elimination system. Let's assume equally skilled teams. Alliance winning winners bracket finals means 50% chance of winning tournament. N'avi 25% chance.... So yes its a punishment? | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
à lá World Cup and stuff. | ||
|
Rebs
Pakistan10726 Posts
On November 11 2013 23:00 nimdil wrote: The normal double elimination format worked for CS (apparently), SC:BW (some MSLs IIRC), SC2... only Dota2 has problems (and maybe LoL - no idea). At the very least winner should have 1 point advantage (as in StarLadder). Simply this is not a double elimination bracket - this is broken format. Well this has been around since TI-2 The logic at the very least was, since the lower bracket team has had to fight through more matches its a safe recompense. My problem with that is that it may be a somewhat valid argument for lan where you can be worse for wear coming out of the lower bracket (even that is a stretch frankly if you go unbeaten then you should have an advantage as the upperbracket winner) I dont see any good reason for a team going unbeaten during a knockout bracket and not being rewarded for it. | ||
|
nimdil
Poland3748 Posts
On November 12 2013 04:16 _SpiRaL_ wrote: Let's assume equally skilled teams. Alliance winning winners bracket finals means 50% chance of winning tournament. N'avi 25% chance.... So yes its a punishment? No. For Na'Vi it may be a punishment but it's not advantage for Alliance which has 50% percent of winning and loosing despite the fact that they arrive in the final undefeated, unlike the other team. Essentially in the grand final you are not rewarded for better results. | ||
|
Machz
Costa Rica174 Posts
I recall it was pretty good, convinced the majority of the community, and after that post almost every tournament removed the 1-0 advantage and supported double elimination. I've been looking for an hour now, but I can't find it. His point of view as a Tournament Admin were very persuasive and could shed some light on the discussion. I find it ironic/silly/dumb that I remember the post, yet don't remember his points  | ||
|
KalWarkov
Germany4126 Posts
| ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On November 12 2013 04:31 nimdil wrote: No. For Na'Vi it may be a punishment but it's not advantage for Alliance which has 50% percent of winning and loosing despite the fact that they arrive in the final undefeated, unlike the other team. Essentially in the grand final you are not rewarded for better results. That's a reward. One team has to play another series, the other team is rewarded by not having to do so. They are on an advantageous position, it's not a meaningless game. The advantage is not as big as it is in regular double elimination for sure, and it's arguable whether it is big enough or if it is unfair, but you cannot say it's not an advantage for the winning team if it is an disadvantage for the losing team. | ||
|
_SpiRaL_
Afghanistan1636 Posts
On November 12 2013 04:31 nimdil wrote: No. For Na'Vi it may be a punishment but it's not advantage for Alliance which has 50% percent of winning and loosing despite the fact that they arrive in the final undefeated, unlike the other team. Essentially in the grand final you are not rewarded for better results. But why would a team have more than 50% in a grand final starting at 0-0? I am all for double elimination, true double elim. Ie final winners bracket team must win 1 bo3, losers bracket team must win 2. I hate this grand final must be 0-0 bullshit tbh. But the format did give Alliance an advantage over losing and the tournament was still fair for all competitors. | ||
| ||
