EPT
On November 12 2013 04:49 Machz wrote:
There was a (long) post from HolyMaster a long time ago (I guess it was JD, since he belongs there) explaining why he removed the 1-0 advantage of the Winners Bracket Team at the grand finals, and supporting the double elimination format.
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
There was a (long) post from HolyMaster a long time ago (I guess it was JD, since he belongs there) explaining why he removed the 1-0 advantage of the Winners Bracket Team at the grand finals, and supporting the double elimination format.
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
I guess my google-fu is incredibly good as it took me like 5 minutes and I never used joinDOTA before:
On 07-16-2012, 09:07 PM on joinDOTA HolyMaster wrote (you can click here to go):
Hey everyone,
this topic has followed me for a few years now, and I have finally changed my mind about it a few weeks ago. If you have a look into The Defense rules, the 1:0 advantage has recently been removed. I will now try to explain why.
The main reason is that a full bo5 makes the grand finals a lot more exciting. Because you don't have a clear underdog who has to fight for an equal score first. You have two strong teams, on par with each other, starting the final race to glory from the same spot.
But is it worth sacrificing fairness for such a "better" grand final? I guess the question is, how many fairness really has to be sacrificed. The upper bracket winner gets denied its second chance within the playoffs as the only team in the competition. That sounds bad. But they still has the advantage of having to play a lot less matches. Also they're qualified for the final sooner, which gives them time to lean back and observe their possible opponents, while they fight for the second slot.
I hate the two bo3-solution, which is used a lot in other games, even though it's technically the most fair one. Because the time of such a "match" (it cannot even be called match actually, it's two matches, which doesn't make it a real final, but two different finals) is extremely unpredictable. Can be two games, can be six. That's the triple length! That's really crucial in Dota, because the length of a single game veries a lot as well. Who wants to play or watch a match without knowing, wether it will last two , five, or even eight hours?
Bo5 with 1:0 is 2-4 games and thus a little bit more prediactable, and not so long overall. That's why it became the standard in the Dota scene for several years. But it's just ugly to start a grand final with an unbalanced score. If the match finishes 3:2 for the ub winner, it looks like he has won the match - but it's actually a draw. And it's just not perfect to finish a tournament with a draw. If a team comes from the lb and wins 3:2, does it deserve to win the tournament more than it's opponent? Maybe, maybe not. It always depends on the situation.
The sad truth is, it's impossible to make such a tournament 100% fair. Here are some of the reasons:
- All playoffs are bo3. It gets completely ignored, wether it's 2:1 or 2:0, even though winning 2:0 is a better accomplishment.
- It doesn't really matter, if a team is first or second place in the groupstage, same for third and fourth
- A team can afford 3 losses in the groupstage (sometimes even 4), but only 1 loss in the playoffs (even if it won all 5 group matches) without being defeated from the tournament. Why should a loss in the groupstage not matter (because you still become 2nd), but a loss the the first ub round does? Why can a team afford one loss in a bo3 every single match wihtout even the slightest consequences, but once it lose two games in one match it's screwed?
What I'm, trying to say here: All scenarios can be unfair. Even the double bo3 final (the lb winner has to win 2 bo3s, the ub winner only one). Example: A beats B 2:0 in the upper final. B beats A 2:1 twice in the grand final. The overall score is now 4:4, but Team B wins the tournament - because two of Team A's wins happened to be irrelevant in the end.
This can even be widened to a really extreme scenario: Team A and B are in the same group. A wins it 5:0, Team B has a 3:2 score, which is enough for the second place in the end. A marches through the upper bracket with two 2:0 victories, B does the same with 2:1. B beats A in the upper final 2:1, A wins the lower final 2:0. A goes into the grand final now with a 12:2 score, B with a 9:5. But B has the winning advantage nontheless. A wins the first bo3 2:0, forcing a final bo3. B wins it 2:1. The overall score of A is now 15:4, the overall score of B is 11:8. If we only count the direct meetings of the two teams, it's 5:4 in favour of A. But Team B wins the tournament. Is that fair? No.
Conclusion: In every tournament, as fair as it might look, there can easily be found a really unfair scenario. If you want infinite and guaranteed fairness, each team has to face every other team 5 times, the team with the most points overall wins. But that is boring, because the winner can be decided long before the competition is finished. It denies us an exciting final.
A little bit more fairness has to be sacrificed for a full bo5, but it makes the grand final a lot more exciting. I think it's worth the trade.
