Na`Vi just won the WePlay Season 2 Grand Finals, going 3-2 against their biggest rivals, Alliance. Na`Vi and Alliance have been tearing up the Dota 2 scene since TI3, both making it to the finals of multiple events where they got their TI3 rematch. This time Na`Vi came out on top, showing that they are currently adapting well to the new patch. With this win Na`Vi are taking home the grand prize of $13,000, while Alliance will take home $6000.
Alliance had a bit of a struggle in the group stages, where they barely made it through. Although they ended up sweeping through the playoffs with a 2-1 victory over TL, and even defeating Na`Vi in the Winner's final. Na`Vi were the opposite, not dropping any games in the group stage, and they were almost dropped out of the playoffs after their loss to Alliance. The finals ended up being as close as you could get, which is something we have come to expect from a finals between these two EU powerhouses. The games where almost fully dependent on the drafting stage, and whoever got their signature heroes seemed to do better. In the end Na`Vi won 3-2.
Congratulations again to Natus Vincere on their well deserved win.
Alliance keeps cutting it short at Grand Finals this season. DK vs Alliance is gonna get less exciting. If Alliance wins, it's "lol DK disband, Mushi go back to SEA". If DK wins, it's Alliance just being a 2nd placer team.
Really back and forth, I just wish some of the games were closer. Kind of funny that clockwork was on the winning team every game. I really liked the hero diversity
On November 11 2013 08:49 nimdil wrote: I don't get this creepy Dota2 format for double elimination. Alliance went 4-3 against Na'Vi and yet are second.
not much of a winner's advantage
btw why was the loser's finals a BO5, while the winner's finals a BO3?
On November 11 2013 08:49 nimdil wrote: I don't get this creepy Dota2 format for double elimination. Alliance went 4-3 against Na'Vi and yet are second.
I know right like where's the extended series rule
fuck Alliance second again I really dislike s4 on DK, I think his impact on the game was minimal ... and also Alliance had to give Timbersaw to Bulldog and we all saw what happened gg better team won I guess
On November 11 2013 08:49 nimdil wrote: I don't get this creepy Dota2 format for double elimination. Alliance went 4-3 against Na'Vi and yet are second.
I know right like where's the winner's advantage rule
On November 11 2013 09:15 RisingTide wrote: Blarg, avoiding spoilers so I can watch the VODs, and bam there it is on the left Edit: That said, which of the games were worth watching?
The final game especially, although you obviously know who won that game. Otherwise, perhaps game 1.
On November 11 2013 08:52 lilopuppy wrote: Alliance keeps cutting it short at Grand Finals this season. DK vs Alliance is gonna get less exciting. If Alliance wins, it's "lol DK disband, Mushi go back to SEA". If DK wins, it's Alliance just being a 2nd placer team.
Is it normal to post the result of the match as the title of the thread? I imagine a decent amount of people will watch the games later and might not want them spoiled...
And my facebook feed is all just Na`Vi fanboys saying how Alliance got lucky during TI3 and Na`Vi deserved to win it and they are the bestest team evar.
The winners advantage was not having to play the losers final.
They both lost one series in the knock out rounds, N'avi played a game more (punishment for losing winners final), the series Alliance lost was the BO5 grand final. Simple.
I personally prefer true double elimination but people seem to hate the idea of that in a final for some reason so here we are.
Alliance played really shaky in all their losses, nothing like how they have played since 6.79 has been released. EGM had 2 absolutely dominant games on windrunner earlier in the day against dignitas so I was surprised they didn't try to get a draft for his windrunner more. Also, at times I think alliance plays too passively against navi. Against other teams you seem them setting up smoke ganks early and looking for pickoffs. Against navi in this series they seemed to try to farm their lanes too much and let navi come to them. Also really surprised they let puppy get chen for as many games as they did. That one game where they had lich+luna vs chen was just getting totally out-drafted.
Nice to see a close series, even though a lot of the individual games weren't that close. It's fun never really having a clear best-of-the-best between the two teams.
On November 11 2013 09:40 Snowster wrote: Is it normal to post the result of the match as the title of the thread? I imagine a decent amount of people will watch the games later and might not want them spoiled...
Yeah, it is standard practice here. For the people who don't want things spoiled, they can check the appropriately named "Hide Spoilers" box.
On November 11 2013 09:59 lilopuppy wrote: And my facebook feed is all just Na`Vi fanboys saying how Alliance got lucky during TI3 and Na`Vi deserved to win it and they are the bestest team evar.
On November 11 2013 08:52 lilopuppy wrote: Alliance keeps cutting it short at Grand Finals this season. DK vs Alliance is gonna get less exciting. If Alliance wins, it's "lol DK disband, Mushi go back to SEA". If DK wins, it's Alliance just being a 2nd placer team.
Kongliance?
that was bad, I'll show myself out
At least Alliance has a championship in Dota 2, unlike jaekong and Starcraft 2.
On November 11 2013 08:52 lilopuppy wrote: Alliance keeps cutting it short at Grand Finals this season. DK vs Alliance is gonna get less exciting. If Alliance wins, it's "lol DK disband, Mushi go back to SEA". If DK wins, it's Alliance just being a 2nd placer team.
Kongliance?
that was bad, I'll show myself out
At least Alliance has a championship in Dota 2, unlike jaekong and Starcraft 2.
A championship, or 10 to be more accurate (not counting online cups).
On November 11 2013 08:49 nimdil wrote: I don't get this creepy Dota2 format for double elimination. Alliance went 4-3 against Na'Vi and yet are second.
I know right like where's the extended series rule
i really hope they fixed this in future dota2 tournaments
Alliance still hasn't quite figured out how to play the new patch I think! Not as well as they used to at least. Na'Vi on the other hand understands the patch much more I feel! Things will probably change over the course of the year as Alliance figures out what kind of playstyle they wanna go for in the new metagame.
On November 11 2013 15:10 mnck wrote: Alliance still hasn't quite figured out how to play the new patch I think! Not as well as they used to at least. Na'Vi on the other hand understands the patch much more I feel! Things will probably change over the course of the year as Alliance figures out what kind of playstyle they wanna go for in the new metagame.
Actually, XBOCT was running around like a chicken with its head cut off on Pugna until the finals came up.
They did a whole bunch of random shit through D2L, D2CL, etc., to be perfectly honest. It's just that they managed to find out that most of the good heroes are still good and Kuro Shadow Shaman likes to zap/shackle people from max range for ez kills, as well as Xboct Medusa ult being pretty good. Nothing special. Alliance was fucking great before this series...everything pretty much was dependent on how comfortable the players felt on their heroes within the drafts I think.
On November 11 2013 15:10 mnck wrote: Alliance still hasn't quite figured out how to play the new patch I think! Not as well as they used to at least. Na'Vi on the other hand understands the patch much more I feel! Things will probably change over the course of the year as Alliance figures out what kind of playstyle they wanna go for in the new metagame.
On November 11 2013 10:21 _SpiRaL_ wrote: The winners advantage was not having to play the losers final.
They both lost one series in the knock out rounds, N'avi played a game more (punishment for losing winners final), the series Alliance lost was the BO5 grand final. Simple.
I personally prefer true double elimination but people seem to hate the idea of that in a final for some reason so here we are.
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.
On November 11 2013 14:27 Spicy_Curry wrote: the team in the losers bracket has to play more games so that is punishment enough imo
No it's not. The idea for Doble elimination bracket is that you can loose a match and still win a tournament. But in this bizarre scenario the only team that is denied this privilege is winners bracket winner. That's hardly fair.
On paper It almost looks like navi is losing this upper bracket finals on purpose to check how alliance is currently playing and prepare for the final.
Or forget about the double elimination format... There's already the group stage as a 'first chance'... We wouldn't lose in quality as teams would be aware that they are one game (or one bo3) away from elimination and would give everything. Teams like Na'Vi would maybe start playing seriously and we wouldn't have stupid WB Finals. Making the games BO3 from the first elimination round would make it fairer as it wouldn't be too random and teams would actually have 2 chances (they would need to drop 2 games to be out).
Good games. It's always a bummer (as an alliance fan) to see them stomp a tournament, even na'vi, in groupstages and play-offs only to play an even grand finals and lose because they play worse. It's either na'vi being way more comfortable when it really matters or they maybe save their strats, although that doesn't make sense (I remember the na'vi v. orange game at TI3).
They're always exciting games, and it'll be good to see them this evening aswell.
On November 11 2013 09:40 Snowster wrote: Is it normal to post the result of the match as the title of the thread? I imagine a decent amount of people will watch the games later and might not want them spoiled...
On the front page there is a check box underneath the centre news graphics: Hide Spoilers, just check that.
Loved a few of those Veno ward placements throughout the series.
On November 11 2013 09:40 Snowster wrote: Is it normal to post the result of the match as the title of the thread? I imagine a decent amount of people will watch the games later and might not want them spoiled...
On the front page there is a check box underneath the centre news graphics: Hide Spoilers, just check that.
Loved a few of those Veno ward placements throughout the series.
I think we need to make the hide spoilers thing more noticeable. Seems like there are always one or two people who read these threads not realizing it even exists.
I'm a Na'Vi fan. That being said I don't think that Na'Vi is better than [A]. Nor is [A] better than Na'Vi. Most of the games are they play are one sided with the draft and strategy being the deciding factor. Of course with both teams being the best the world has to offer the plays are amazing on both sides, and those plays can and sometimes do change the course of a game, but I think the most important decisions that affect the outcome of the game are made during the drafting stage.
What I find most interesting is that neither teams are complete. By that I means boths teams have complementary strengths and weaknesses. If one of the teams could learn a bit from the other, they would become the better of the two.
Alliance - 1) Has a clear game plan and strategy; 2) selfless player = players will do whatever if takes to execute the plan even if it means throwing thenselves to the wolfs.
Na'Vi - 1) Thrives in chaos, they don't have as clear of a plan as [A] does, they mostly do it on the fly and focus on killing heros instead of taking objectives. 2) They rely on individual plays to acomplish number 1, not carefully planned strategies.
Thats a general ideia that I have about the teams. Of course NaVi has some level of strategy and plans and [A] can acomplish wonders in terms of individual play, but those points listed above are what they are best at. If NaVi could be a bit less gridy and stick to the course or if [A] could improvise more when their plan wasn't working all that well they would become the best. In the end, maybe its impossible to do both things at the same time. Becouse it you rely on individual play to win, you are not relying on a plan and vice-versa. But maybe NaVi could play like - try to execute a plan, if that fails fallback to chaos dota that they are good at. As for [A], execute their plan, but give a little more freedon for player to do their own thing instead of always following the path thats been laid before them.
Navi played really good. I was rooting for [A] and there were some good plays showed up. But last game i didn't expect Bulldog to give that much farm to Medusa with bear on that lane. Xboct is really good on that hero and he farms extremely fast. I thought S4 had some questionable decisions when initiating or chasing in those series. Especially in Game 2 were Magnus was really dangerous but gave away 2 kills that were completely unnecessary.
3 Things i notied though. - Venomancer in lane is extremely strong. Near the level of imba, that strong. - Radiant hard lane is imba, icefrog should fix something with the pulling and stuff with that lane, it's pretty easy to leech exp with the new changes from that lane as radiant. - [A] and Na'Vi are are way better teams than others skillwise, there is like a gap between them and others. The thing is Na'Vi sometimes go lazy and don't play their %100 and lose games while [A] is more consistent in their plays but when they both play their heart out you never know what's gonna come out.
Congratz to Na'Vi, really deserved win and nice games.
On November 11 2013 18:19 TheEmulator wrote: I think we need to make the hide spoilers thing more noticeable. Seems like there are always one or two people who read these threads not realizing it even exists.
I agree. When I was trying to relocate it before I posted the solution it took me awhile. It's not in the filter button in the header, it's not in your account settings.
It could also be placed in the header menu bar after the TL+ option. Or underneath your personal login name at the top left.
Why did EG.swe loose? well NaVi never gave Furion/Chen to EG.swe. And thats why EG.swe was not able to play their boring for me, but well executed syndrom as style of game. Once other teams understand what they have to ban against them they will keep on with loosing. They are great players but have the same problem as Lodas Team under SK in dota1. They are not able to adept more than one playstyle. Hope they work on it and start playing entertaining dota or it will stay the same. Even if they win TI the opponent team will get more cheering.
On November 11 2013 18:54 tadL wrote: Why did EG.swe loose? well NaVi never gave Furion/Chen to EG.swe. And thats why EG.swe was not able to play their boring for me, but well executed syndrom as style of game. Once other teams understand what they have to ban against them they will keep on with loosing. They are great players but have the same problem as Lodas Team under SK in dota1. They are not able to adept more than one playstyle. Hope they work on it and start playing entertaining dota or it will stay the same. Even if they win TI the opponent team will get more cheering.
Just to note the series ended 3-2 with stomps from both sides.
On November 11 2013 18:54 tadL wrote: Why did EG.swe loose? well NaVi never gave Furion/Chen to EG.swe...
Alliance got Chen in G1 (which they did win admittedly, but more off the back off Navi laning/drafting poorly imo). How does it feel knowing you went out of your way to write "EG.swe" each time? I can't comprehend it.
Because its EG.swe and it sounds way better than Alliance to me.
PS: I do not dislike Loda, I enjoyed him back in SK days too. Its just that his teams always work out one style to a great level but once it get figured out and their personal skill stopps carrying them the team falls apart.
Did you even watch the games tadL? It sure doesn't sound like it.
I really liked Navi's itemisation in that final game, it seemed like no matter how much Alliance threw at Navi it kinda just bounced off. Interesting games on both sides, they weren't as gripping as other meetups between the two teams but exciting nevertheless.
On November 11 2013 09:15 RisingTide wrote: Blarg, avoiding spoilers so I can watch the VODs, and bam there it is on the left Edit: That said, which of the games were worth watching?
The risk of getting spoiled can be minimized greatly if you would not have visited TL to begin with, you kinda did this one to yourself
I think I read somewhere that Na'Vi lost the winner's finals to see how [A] plays, and then prepare for them in the grand finals a week later..
Though can't stress enough how stupid that sounds, it still has to have some truth in there.. [A] tends to play a bit predictable, therefore Na'Vi can prepare some surprise (given that they've practised it) at the last moment..
Therefore I agree - either the grand-finals should be an extended series (not BO7, but BO9), or maybe the MLG format (which I dislike TBH, but examples like this tend to show the need of sth like it) in which the loser has to win 2 series (in this case BO5) to win the whole thing and the winner has to win a single series (of BO5)
Thinking of which - tend to think that the extended BO9 is/was the best call IMO
On November 11 2013 21:18 VArsovskiSC wrote: I think I read somewhere that Na'Vi lost the winner's finals to see how [A] plays, and then prepare for them in the grand finals a week later..
I really wish people would stop making stupid excuses for why a team lost or won. Na'vi lost one series during the play-offs, Alliance lost one series during the play-offs. Na'vi had to play one more series than alliance and thus already had a tougher road to the finals than alliance did. We do NOT need extended series and BO7/9 sounds absolutely idiotic in a game where the average match takes around 35-40 minutes not even accounting for drafting and hosting the game.
On November 11 2013 17:47 WillyWanker wrote: Or forget about the double elimination format... There's already the group stage as a 'first chance'... We wouldn't lose in quality as teams would be aware that they are one game (or one bo3) away from elimination and would give everything. Teams like Na'Vi would maybe start playing seriously and we wouldn't have stupid WB Finals. Making the games BO3 from the first elimination round would make it fairer as it wouldn't be too random and teams would actually have 2 chances (they would need to drop 2 games to be out).
Guys its more games, its more awesomeness, it gives the organizers and advertisers more exposure. If it were only winner bracket the tournament runs shorter.
I wouldn't say this is the best, but its how it is and it isn't necessarily bad or unfair.
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.
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
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-
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-
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.
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?
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-
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.
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.
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.
Extended series is special because it is both "unfair" and it kills hype.
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...
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.
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...
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.
On November 11 2013 10:21 _SpiRaL_ wrote: The winners advantage was not having to play the losers final.
They both lost one series in the knock out rounds, N'avi played a game more (punishment for losing winners final), the series Alliance lost was the BO5 grand final. Simple.
I personally prefer true double elimination but people seem to hate the idea of that in a final for some reason so here we are.
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....
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-
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.
On November 11 2013 10:21 _SpiRaL_ wrote: The winners advantage was not having to play the losers final.
They both lost one series in the knock out rounds, N'avi played a game more (punishment for losing winners final), the series Alliance lost was the BO5 grand final. Simple.
I personally prefer true double elimination but people seem to hate the idea of that in a final for some reason so here we are.
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?
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.
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
On November 11 2013 10:21 _SpiRaL_ wrote: The winners advantage was not having to play the losers final.
They both lost one series in the knock out rounds, N'avi played a game more (punishment for losing winners final), the series Alliance lost was the BO5 grand final. Simple.
I personally prefer true double elimination but people seem to hate the idea of that in a final for some reason so here we are.
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?
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.
On November 11 2013 10:21 _SpiRaL_ wrote: The winners advantage was not having to play the losers final.
They both lost one series in the knock out rounds, N'avi played a game more (punishment for losing winners final), the series Alliance lost was the BO5 grand final. Simple.
I personally prefer true double elimination but people seem to hate the idea of that in a final for some reason so here we are.
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?
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.
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
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.
FYI, Alliance's overall record in this tournament is 17-8; Na'Vi's overall record is 22-8.
Getting to Grand Finals is the same as getting out of your group - as long as you make it there, it doesn't matter whether you came in the first place or second, it affects seeding out of groups and the total amount of games played in the wb/lb difference. If you think coming through WB isn't a big enough advantage because omg Alliance had a 4-3 record vs Na'Vi total, shouldn't you also make some kind of an argument as to how group records should have more of an effect, too? Alliance did lose an extra couple games during groups, why don't their play off opponents get more of an advantage for it?
On November 11 2013 10:21 _SpiRaL_ wrote: The winners advantage was not having to play the losers final.
They both lost one series in the knock out rounds, N'avi played a game more (punishment for losing winners final), the series Alliance lost was the BO5 grand final. Simple.
I personally prefer true double elimination but people seem to hate the idea of that in a final for some reason so here we are.
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?
Rly? I mean that is wrong in so many ways ... but I wont argue. For me its just strange to see a double elim without winners advantage. For me its a crucial part of the system. Anyways, if people who run turnaments get to the conclusion that its better without it we have to accept it
Maybe team coming from the winners bracket should j just have additional minor advantage like choosing dire / radiant and draft order in each match of the final?
On November 12 2013 16:46 nimdil wrote: Maybe team coming from the winners bracket should j just have additional minor advantage like choosing dire / radiant and draft order in each match of the final?
On November 12 2013 16:46 nimdil wrote: Maybe team coming from the winners bracket should j just have additional minor advantage like choosing dire / radiant and draft order in each match of the final?
This is a nice idea actually.
Draft order in each much might be a lot but the first game dire/rad side and who first ban choice would be good enough i believe.
On November 12 2013 16:46 nimdil wrote: Maybe team coming from the winners bracket should j just have additional minor advantage like choosing dire / radiant and draft order in each match of the final?
This is a nice idea actually.
Draft order in each much might be a lot but the first game dire/rad side and who first ban choice would be good enough i believe.
I don't have statistics to support your claim (or discard it) but I believe that something can be done within these lines to give winner's bracket winner substantial advantage without breaking time schedule and - for some - breaking the hype for the finals.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8zoFu2j.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/TheEmulator/2013/November/WePlay/WePlayPrize.png)
![[image loading]](/staff/TheEmulator/2013/November/WePlay/WePlayBracket.png)
I really dislike s4 on DK, I think his impact on the game was minimal ... and also Alliance had to give Timbersaw to Bulldog and we all saw what happened 
