|
On August 12 2013 16:36 Bisu-Fan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 16:27 sumsaR wrote:
What's up with the Grand Finals not having any advantage for the Upper Bracket winners by the way? It's a double elim bracket, but the UB winners are at an disadvantage because they don't get that "free loss" the LB winners get. Should have been one game up from the start or something.
What form of an advantage would you give the winner's bracket finalist? I'm not saying it's not warranted, but I find it hard to find a good balance of reward for winners bracket finals vs insurmountable advantage for someone who's already made it to the winner's bracket final... Genuinely curious because Na'Vi lost last year when they were in [A]'s place, and I think the responses were a bit stronger because iG won. However, I kinda like the system right now: the winner's bracket finalist get extra time to rest and study their opponents..
Personally, I feel like the format of ti is pretty solid. I was never a fan of upper bracket winner getting a 1:0 against lower bracket winner.
Upper bracket already has an upper hand because they have played less game and are given more time in between matches to prepare whereas lower bracket teams play more games and have to play more often.
I think that's a pretty good advantage and also creates a lot of hype for the grand finals.
|
On August 12 2013 17:03 rkshox wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 16:36 Bisu-Fan wrote:On August 12 2013 16:27 sumsaR wrote:
What's up with the Grand Finals not having any advantage for the Upper Bracket winners by the way? It's a double elim bracket, but the UB winners are at an disadvantage because they don't get that "free loss" the LB winners get. Should have been one game up from the start or something.
What form of an advantage would you give the winner's bracket finalist? I'm not saying it's not warranted, but I find it hard to find a good balance of reward for winners bracket finals vs insurmountable advantage for someone who's already made it to the winner's bracket final... Genuinely curious because Na'Vi lost last year when they were in [A]'s place, and I think the responses were a bit stronger because iG won. However, I kinda like the system right now: the winner's bracket finalist get extra time to rest and study their opponents.. Personally, I feel like the format of ti is pretty solid. I was never a fan of upper bracket winner getting a 1:0 against lower bracket winner. Upper bracket already has an upper hand because they have played less game and are given more time in between matches to prepare whereas lower bracket teams play more games and have to play more often.
Playing more games leading up to the finals is generally considered an advantage, because the team is warmed up and has psychological momentum from winning many games in a row. The fatigue is nothing compared to their training schedule.
|
i highly enjoy the format of the TI3 brackets and i hope they dont change anything
in fact i hope starcraft adopts the model
300,000 viewers on the english twitch stream cant be wrong
as far as i see it, the winners bracket finalists have the advantage of they didnt need to play extra games and suffer more chances of being knocked out
so you win the upper bracket, you get a pass into the finals. while everyone in the lower bracket tries to earn the right to fight you. then have a clean BoX
i think its an amazing system
|
On August 12 2013 17:10 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:03 rkshox wrote:On August 12 2013 16:36 Bisu-Fan wrote:On August 12 2013 16:27 sumsaR wrote:
What's up with the Grand Finals not having any advantage for the Upper Bracket winners by the way? It's a double elim bracket, but the UB winners are at an disadvantage because they don't get that "free loss" the LB winners get. Should have been one game up from the start or something.
What form of an advantage would you give the winner's bracket finalist? I'm not saying it's not warranted, but I find it hard to find a good balance of reward for winners bracket finals vs insurmountable advantage for someone who's already made it to the winner's bracket final... Genuinely curious because Na'Vi lost last year when they were in [A]'s place, and I think the responses were a bit stronger because iG won. However, I kinda like the system right now: the winner's bracket finalist get extra time to rest and study their opponents.. Personally, I feel like the format of ti is pretty solid. I was never a fan of upper bracket winner getting a 1:0 against lower bracket winner. Upper bracket already has an upper hand because they have played less game and are given more time in between matches to prepare whereas lower bracket teams play more games and have to play more often. Playing more games leading up to the finals is generally considered an advantage, because the team is warmed up and has psychological momentum from winning many games in a row. The fatigue is nothing compared to their training schedule.
I guess ti format can be argued to death, but you make a very good point. Good point indeed. To reep up the benefits of my late commitment to the compendium. I played for a full day to get the bonus points and items. Winning a large percentage of my games did make me want to keep playing. Momentum ftw!
|
On August 12 2013 17:30 rinnnedor321 wrote:
as far as i see it, the winners bracket finalists have the advantage of they didnt need to play extra games and suffer more chances of being knocked out
so you win the upper bracket, you get a pass into the finals. while everyone in the lower bracket tries to earn the right to fight you. then have a clean BoX
Everyone except you get an extra life. Not particularly fair.
|
On August 12 2013 17:33 rkshox wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:10 Cel.erity wrote:On August 12 2013 17:03 rkshox wrote:On August 12 2013 16:36 Bisu-Fan wrote:On August 12 2013 16:27 sumsaR wrote:
What's up with the Grand Finals not having any advantage for the Upper Bracket winners by the way? It's a double elim bracket, but the UB winners are at an disadvantage because they don't get that "free loss" the LB winners get. Should have been one game up from the start or something.
What form of an advantage would you give the winner's bracket finalist? I'm not saying it's not warranted, but I find it hard to find a good balance of reward for winners bracket finals vs insurmountable advantage for someone who's already made it to the winner's bracket final... Genuinely curious because Na'Vi lost last year when they were in [A]'s place, and I think the responses were a bit stronger because iG won. However, I kinda like the system right now: the winner's bracket finalist get extra time to rest and study their opponents.. Personally, I feel like the format of ti is pretty solid. I was never a fan of upper bracket winner getting a 1:0 against lower bracket winner. Upper bracket already has an upper hand because they have played less game and are given more time in between matches to prepare whereas lower bracket teams play more games and have to play more often. Playing more games leading up to the finals is generally considered an advantage, because the team is warmed up and has psychological momentum from winning many games in a row. The fatigue is nothing compared to their training schedule. I guess ti format can be argued to death, but you make a very good point. Good point indeed. To reep up the benefits of my late commitment to the compendium. I played for a full day to get the bonus points and items. Winning a large percentage of my games did make me want to keep playing. Momentum ftw!
If it's such an edge why not just throw the upper bracket final? I know which position I'd rather be in. If you don't lose in the UB then you get into the final, avoid elimination games up to that point as well as getting more time to rest and study your opponents. I never liked the double series/game advantages that UB players get in SC. Making the final such an uneven playing field ruins hype.
|
1120 Posts
When we will see more Dota? I'm excited
|
Did we get a confirmation about the viewer count ? I'd say it was around 600k without the chinese streams.
|
On August 12 2013 17:10 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:03 rkshox wrote:On August 12 2013 16:36 Bisu-Fan wrote:On August 12 2013 16:27 sumsaR wrote:
What's up with the Grand Finals not having any advantage for the Upper Bracket winners by the way? It's a double elim bracket, but the UB winners are at an disadvantage because they don't get that "free loss" the LB winners get. Should have been one game up from the start or something.
What form of an advantage would you give the winner's bracket finalist? I'm not saying it's not warranted, but I find it hard to find a good balance of reward for winners bracket finals vs insurmountable advantage for someone who's already made it to the winner's bracket final... Genuinely curious because Na'Vi lost last year when they were in [A]'s place, and I think the responses were a bit stronger because iG won. However, I kinda like the system right now: the winner's bracket finalist get extra time to rest and study their opponents.. Personally, I feel like the format of ti is pretty solid. I was never a fan of upper bracket winner getting a 1:0 against lower bracket winner. Upper bracket already has an upper hand because they have played less game and are given more time in between matches to prepare whereas lower bracket teams play more games and have to play more often. Playing more games leading up to the finals is generally considered an advantage, because the team is warmed up and has psychological momentum from winning many games in a row. The fatigue is nothing compared to their training schedule.
I am not sure about that. And unless we see teams intentionally losing to get to the losers, I think we can conclude that all the teams prefer going through the WB (which means at least the players feel it is an advantage). Your argument might have merit if the third team is WAY below the level of the first two and it is a sure win in the LB finals. But even thought Navi and [A] were probably favorites against Orange. I doubt neither team really wanted to go down to LB and have to play Orange. So that itself is already the advantage gained by the winning team.
|
On August 12 2013 17:46 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:33 rkshox wrote:On August 12 2013 17:10 Cel.erity wrote:On August 12 2013 17:03 rkshox wrote:On August 12 2013 16:36 Bisu-Fan wrote:On August 12 2013 16:27 sumsaR wrote:
What's up with the Grand Finals not having any advantage for the Upper Bracket winners by the way? It's a double elim bracket, but the UB winners are at an disadvantage because they don't get that "free loss" the LB winners get. Should have been one game up from the start or something.
What form of an advantage would you give the winner's bracket finalist? I'm not saying it's not warranted, but I find it hard to find a good balance of reward for winners bracket finals vs insurmountable advantage for someone who's already made it to the winner's bracket final... Genuinely curious because Na'Vi lost last year when they were in [A]'s place, and I think the responses were a bit stronger because iG won. However, I kinda like the system right now: the winner's bracket finalist get extra time to rest and study their opponents.. Personally, I feel like the format of ti is pretty solid. I was never a fan of upper bracket winner getting a 1:0 against lower bracket winner. Upper bracket already has an upper hand because they have played less game and are given more time in between matches to prepare whereas lower bracket teams play more games and have to play more often. Playing more games leading up to the finals is generally considered an advantage, because the team is warmed up and has psychological momentum from winning many games in a row. The fatigue is nothing compared to their training schedule. I guess ti format can be argued to death, but you make a very good point. Good point indeed. To reep up the benefits of my late commitment to the compendium. I played for a full day to get the bonus points and items. Winning a large percentage of my games did make me want to keep playing. Momentum ftw! If it's such an edge why not just throw the upper bracket final? I know which position I'd rather be in. If you don't lose in the UB then you get into the final, avoid elimination games up to that point as well as getting more time to rest and study your opponents. I never liked the double series/game advantages that UB players get in SC. Making the final such an uneven playing field ruins hype.
Strawman argument. Losing WF means you need to win one additional match before making it to GF, so obviously winning is preferable. However, the winner of LF (Na'Vi in this case) will naturally be pumped up from winning their series, and they'll have some games of real practice under their belt for the day, unlike the waiting team (Alliance). It's clearly an advantage for the team coming from LF.
The argument about unfairness is, if Na'Vi beats Alliance 3-2 in that series, both teams will have lost one series in the tournament, to each other. So why should Na'Vi's win count as winning the tournament if they only evened up the score? In a typical double elimination tournament, Na'Vi would have to beat Alliance twice, with the second series being a tiebreaker.
I am not sure about that. And unless we see teams intentionally losing to get to the losers, I think we can conclude that all the teams prefer going through the WB (which means at least the players feel it is an advantage).
This is the exact same strawman argument. Of course you would prefer to win WF, because that means you have a better chance of reaching GF. But it does not mean you're in better shape than whoever wins LF.
|
On August 12 2013 17:10 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:03 rkshox wrote:On August 12 2013 16:36 Bisu-Fan wrote:On August 12 2013 16:27 sumsaR wrote:
What's up with the Grand Finals not having any advantage for the Upper Bracket winners by the way? It's a double elim bracket, but the UB winners are at an disadvantage because they don't get that "free loss" the LB winners get. Should have been one game up from the start or something.
What form of an advantage would you give the winner's bracket finalist? I'm not saying it's not warranted, but I find it hard to find a good balance of reward for winners bracket finals vs insurmountable advantage for someone who's already made it to the winner's bracket final... Genuinely curious because Na'Vi lost last year when they were in [A]'s place, and I think the responses were a bit stronger because iG won. However, I kinda like the system right now: the winner's bracket finalist get extra time to rest and study their opponents.. Personally, I feel like the format of ti is pretty solid. I was never a fan of upper bracket winner getting a 1:0 against lower bracket winner. Upper bracket already has an upper hand because they have played less game and are given more time in between matches to prepare whereas lower bracket teams play more games and have to play more often. Playing more games leading up to the finals is generally considered an advantage, because the team is warmed up and has psychological momentum from winning many games in a row. The fatigue is nothing compared to their training schedule.
And the teams don't get to play any games besides tournament games? You also have to fight elimination in the lower bracket. I don't think any team is like "Yay, we get more practice now that we dropped to lower in the first round, we are going to win!"
|
On August 12 2013 17:48 SkelA wrote:
Did we get a confirmation about the viewer count ? I'd say it was around 600k without the chinese streams.
From what I understand it was over a million, that includes Twitch streams, chinese streams, DotaTV. That doesn't include TV broadcasts or highwinds stream
|
On August 12 2013 17:59 Mosoball wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:10 Cel.erity wrote:On August 12 2013 17:03 rkshox wrote:On August 12 2013 16:36 Bisu-Fan wrote:On August 12 2013 16:27 sumsaR wrote:
What's up with the Grand Finals not having any advantage for the Upper Bracket winners by the way? It's a double elim bracket, but the UB winners are at an disadvantage because they don't get that "free loss" the LB winners get. Should have been one game up from the start or something.
What form of an advantage would you give the winner's bracket finalist? I'm not saying it's not warranted, but I find it hard to find a good balance of reward for winners bracket finals vs insurmountable advantage for someone who's already made it to the winner's bracket final... Genuinely curious because Na'Vi lost last year when they were in [A]'s place, and I think the responses were a bit stronger because iG won. However, I kinda like the system right now: the winner's bracket finalist get extra time to rest and study their opponents.. Personally, I feel like the format of ti is pretty solid. I was never a fan of upper bracket winner getting a 1:0 against lower bracket winner. Upper bracket already has an upper hand because they have played less game and are given more time in between matches to prepare whereas lower bracket teams play more games and have to play more often. Playing more games leading up to the finals is generally considered an advantage, because the team is warmed up and has psychological momentum from winning many games in a row. The fatigue is nothing compared to their training schedule. And the teams don't get to play any games besides tournament games? You also have to fight elimination in the lower bracket. I don't think any team is like "Yay, we get more practice now that we dropped to lower in the first round, we are going to win!"
Third strawman post in a row. I feel like some people don't understand basic logic.
You are arguing: "In winner's finals, would you rather win or lose?" No shit, you want to win, because if you lose, there's a 50% chance (assuming equal skill) that you will not make it to the grand finals, while winning gives you a 100% chance.
However, that's not the question. The question is: "does the team coming from winner's finals have an advantage over the team coming from loser's finals?" and with TI3's format the answer is most certainly no.
|
On August 12 2013 16:26 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 16:20 sumsaR wrote:On August 12 2013 14:49 opterown wrote:On August 12 2013 14:40 sumsaR wrote:
The 'Fountain Hook' was an unintended consequence of mechanics, but Valve/icefrog liked it and kept it. It won't be "fixed", because it's now a part of the game. Like many things before it. Neutral creep stacking? That was an unintended bug from the start that was kept because it was a mechanic that was liked. Many of the 'features' that you nowadays see as a part of dota started as an unintended bug, just like fountain hooks. It won't go away, just like stacking didn't. the hook itself won't be fixed, but the visual problem is very much a bug. there's a reason why valve stopped navi from using it further, as well as only showcasing one of those hooks as a highlight. if it was such a play i'm sure they would have top10'd more fountain hooks than just one random one on mu. Yes, the visual bug needs to be fixed, agreed. But the mechanics are here to stay, as it's not been removed even though it's been known since 2011. Sadly many (new to dota, I'd assume) people are under the impression that it's a bug that's being exploited and that needs to be fixed sooner rather than later. Dude, the mechanic is almost 100% going to be removed. Various pro players according to Synderen have stated that they were very upset with how Navi won that game. Even Puppey himself was pretty hesitant to say that their victory was 'legitimate' in an interview regarding the fountain hooking, as he described abusing the bug as 'hardcore.' If a vast majority of pro players at TI were upset about it, I'm sure it's gonna get removed.
Imo there are bugs with a much bigger impact, like batgoing off the map with firefly. And we see that one every game that bat is picked. Is that actually intended? Other heroes cannot reach him, it seems unfair to me.
Regarding who has an advantage going into the GF, we can't really know. Yes, navi was pumpedfrom coming back vs orange but they must also have been exhausted after almost 10hs of straight dota. Maybe that's why they made those mistakes in the end. Even grinding 10hs of pubs is tiring, let alone playing for this kind of money.
|
On August 12 2013 17:57 Cel.erity wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:46 Scarecrow wrote:On August 12 2013 17:33 rkshox wrote:On August 12 2013 17:10 Cel.erity wrote:On August 12 2013 17:03 rkshox wrote:On August 12 2013 16:36 Bisu-Fan wrote:On August 12 2013 16:27 sumsaR wrote:
What's up with the Grand Finals not having any advantage for the Upper Bracket winners by the way? It's a double elim bracket, but the UB winners are at an disadvantage because they don't get that "free loss" the LB winners get. Should have been one game up from the start or something.
What form of an advantage would you give the winner's bracket finalist? I'm not saying it's not warranted, but I find it hard to find a good balance of reward for winners bracket finals vs insurmountable advantage for someone who's already made it to the winner's bracket final... Genuinely curious because Na'Vi lost last year when they were in [A]'s place, and I think the responses were a bit stronger because iG won. However, I kinda like the system right now: the winner's bracket finalist get extra time to rest and study their opponents.. Personally, I feel like the format of ti is pretty solid. I was never a fan of upper bracket winner getting a 1:0 against lower bracket winner. Upper bracket already has an upper hand because they have played less game and are given more time in between matches to prepare whereas lower bracket teams play more games and have to play more often. Playing more games leading up to the finals is generally considered an advantage, because the team is warmed up and has psychological momentum from winning many games in a row. The fatigue is nothing compared to their training schedule. I guess ti format can be argued to death, but you make a very good point. Good point indeed. To reep up the benefits of my late commitment to the compendium. I played for a full day to get the bonus points and items. Winning a large percentage of my games did make me want to keep playing. Momentum ftw! If it's such an edge why not just throw the upper bracket final? I know which position I'd rather be in. If you don't lose in the UB then you get into the final, avoid elimination games up to that point as well as getting more time to rest and study your opponents. I never liked the double series/game advantages that UB players get in SC. Making the final such an uneven playing field ruins hype. Strawman argument. Losing WF means you need to win one additional match before making it to GF, so obviously winning is preferable. However, the winner of LF (Na'Vi in this case) will naturally be pumped up from winning their series, and they'll have some games of real practice under their belt for the day, unlike the waiting team (Alliance). It's clearly an advantage for the team coming from LF. The argument about unfairness is, if Na'Vi beats Alliance 3-2 in that series, both teams will have lost one series in the tournament, to each other. So why should Na'Vi's win count as winning the tournament if they only evened up the score? In a typical double elimination tournament, Na'Vi would have to beat Alliance twice, with the second series being a tiebreaker. Show nested quote +I am not sure about that. And unless we see teams intentionally losing to get to the losers, I think we can conclude that all the teams prefer going through the WB (which means at least the players feel it is an advantage). This is the exact same strawman argument. Of course you would prefer to win WF, because that means you have a better chance of reaching GF. But it does not mean you're in better shape than whoever wins LF.
valid points from both sides of the argument but i think the real reason is a a matter of practicality: playing 2 BO3s is potentially a 6 hour plus affair. 2 BO5s? even worse
|
United Kingdom24425 Posts
The TI format is as it is because it makes the final more interesting.
People can argue fairness all day long but it gets you no where and it ultimately doesn't matter. You could argue that because one team won in the group stage over a specific team they should get an advantage. It's kind of pointless.
|
On August 12 2013 17:51 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:10 Cel.erity wrote:On August 12 2013 17:03 rkshox wrote:On August 12 2013 16:36 Bisu-Fan wrote:On August 12 2013 16:27 sumsaR wrote:
What's up with the Grand Finals not having any advantage for the Upper Bracket winners by the way? It's a double elim bracket, but the UB winners are at an disadvantage because they don't get that "free loss" the LB winners get. Should have been one game up from the start or something.
What form of an advantage would you give the winner's bracket finalist? I'm not saying it's not warranted, but I find it hard to find a good balance of reward for winners bracket finals vs insurmountable advantage for someone who's already made it to the winner's bracket final... Genuinely curious because Na'Vi lost last year when they were in [A]'s place, and I think the responses were a bit stronger because iG won. However, I kinda like the system right now: the winner's bracket finalist get extra time to rest and study their opponents.. Personally, I feel like the format of ti is pretty solid. I was never a fan of upper bracket winner getting a 1:0 against lower bracket winner. Upper bracket already has an upper hand because they have played less game and are given more time in between matches to prepare whereas lower bracket teams play more games and have to play more often. Playing more games leading up to the finals is generally considered an advantage, because the team is warmed up and has psychological momentum from winning many games in a row. The fatigue is nothing compared to their training schedule. I am not sure about that. And unless we see teams intentionally losing to get to the losers, I think we can conclude that all the teams prefer going through the WB (which means at least the players feel it is an advantage). Your argument might have merit if the third team is WAY below the level of the first two and it is a sure win in the LB finals. But even thought Navi and [A] were probably favorites against Orange. I doubt neither team really wanted to go down to LB and have to play Orange. So that itself is already the advantage gained by the winning team.
With all psychological and physical reasons aside. Being in the upper bracket does have its great benefits because you never really face elimination if you win in UB. I mean, isn't that the reason they have prelims? To play for UB placement.
With that argument aside twitch tv numbers definitely didn't reflect how many people were watching the grand final. Maybe Valve will come out with an exact number in the next few days or with the ti3 documentary.
|
On August 12 2013 17:37 sumsaR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2013 17:30 rinnnedor321 wrote:
as far as i see it, the winners bracket finalists have the advantage of they didnt need to play extra games and suffer more chances of being knocked out
so you win the upper bracket, you get a pass into the finals. while everyone in the lower bracket tries to earn the right to fight you. then have a clean BoX Everyone except you get an extra life. Not particularly fair.
You don't get to face additional opponents by getting to the grand finals from the winner's bracket. It's a fair compromise.Just look at Orange. Assuming they beat Navi to get to the grand finals, they will have to play up to 6 matches in total during the main event just to get there, in comparison to Alliance who only needed to play 3. You're underestimating the advantage here when you have a ton more opportunities to study your opponents than the other way round, not to mention having a lot of rest.
I was heavily leaning on the idea of playing 2 Bo5s / Bo3s last year initially even though I was supporting iG, until I followed Orange this year and saw the number of games they had to play. I just don't think that the team coming up from the LB would stand a chance after having to play an additional match even before a "2 BoX" grand final on the same day.
|
I used to think the UB winner had to get an advantage, but I've kind of changed my view over the course of time. At the end of the day there are arguments (*cough*complains*cough*) to both sides, but ultimately a fresh scoreboard would make for a more exciting finals, in my opinion.
I think if anything Valve's format has shown us, is that they reward teams which play best when it matters rather than overall. While this rewards clutch teams which do well when it matters like Navi, I feel if teams really want to prove they're the best, they not only have to be consistent, but also they also have to be calm, collected and resourceful in various situations (see LGD.cn vs Dignitas tiebreakers; Bo1 LB rounds 1-3).
One thing is certain though, had we not had a clean slate Bo5, we wouldn't have had the epic final 4 games of this tournament.
|
Russian Federation3338 Posts
Apart from the fairness and all, I like this format... Just the fact that the Grand Final is a bo5 increases the chance that the more skilled of the two finalist teams wins. And personally, I think both finalists will have advantages and disadvantages coming from the WB and the LB.
WB gets the extra rest, but then they run the risk of being rusty. However, they do get extra time to mentally prepare themselves and think of strats/plan for the opposing team while the LB finals are being played. This second advantage for WB is disputable, but I do think it might have some bearing? Because even dota teams draft differently by day, the WB finalists get to see how the opposing teams are drafting. For example, weaver, one of the most popular (and in Na'Vi's case, successful) picks of TI3 was only picked once by Na'Vi the whole day (game 2 against Orange). [A] only banned weaver in game 1 and then realized Na'Vi weren't leaning towards the annoying bug, so they moved forward without banning weaver for the rest of the set.
The finalists from the LB should have all the momentum in the world in their favor going into the grand finals. In the case that they rofl-stomped the LB opponent, they should be full of confidence; in the case that they ground out victories, they should have gotten all the kinks out of their system and ready to blast on all cylinders right from the get go. However, the obvious disadvantage is that they have already played at least 2 games (which include mentally stressing drafts to physically demanding games) Whether 2 games are demanding compared to the inhumane hours of bootcamping is also disputable. However, I think the body would be significantly far from the homeostatic conditions of a bootcamp whilst playing with their backs against elimination. Simply put, the adrenaline coursing through the body during the LB finals will undeniably take its toll on the body, and too much time with that adrenaline and your body will start to fail you. With the downtime between the LB finals and the grand finals, the body might have time to recuperate, but it might also shut down like I do after a basketball game (sadly during tournaments where we have like 3 games a day, so it takes at least the full warm up and then even sometimes part of the game to get fully into game-mode).
Those seem like the most obvious plusses and minuses of both finalists to me, but then again that's just my view... Hope I don't have any other fallacies (slippery slope, straw man, and especially argument from ignorance lol)...
dang it fricking [A] won... baldghg=ageiaefihg (too much formal talk for me after such a heart rending loss)  even woke up early on my birthday (4am to be exact) for this... bah but oh well I love Na'Vi still~ :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
