|
On September 02 2012 01:42 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2012 01:41 rotegirte wrote:On September 02 2012 01:40 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:39 rotegirte wrote:On September 02 2012 01:35 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:25 ShiaoPi wrote:On September 02 2012 01:22 Shikyo wrote:
Oh btw.
If it's true that there's no advantage for upper bracket vs lower bracket it pretty much is ridiculous and destroys the whole purpose >_<
Also, amazing. The main advantage is not having to play a shitton of bo1's where you could get eliminated by "cheesy" or pocket strategy That still is pretty stupid. I mean let's say you lose the winner's finals. Then after you win 1 game(after losing, mind you), you're in even footing against the team you just lost to. Last 2 rounds of LB are Bo3 So this means that the team that loses the winners finals doesn't even have the hypotethical disadvantage of the bo1? Yes, they have the disadvantage of playing one more Bo3 instead So if the team who hasn't lost a set yet lose in the grand finals they get the disadvantage of losing and don't get the "disadvantage" of playing another bo3, you think that this is fair?
The WB winner has an undeniable advantage of having played less game ( more fresh, more strategies in their pocket, etc) however small they are.
You ( and many others, me included) think that it is not a big enough advantage. Valve deem that it is.
|
Czech Republic18921 Posts
|
|
|
On September 02 2012 01:42 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2012 01:41 rotegirte wrote:On September 02 2012 01:40 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:39 rotegirte wrote:On September 02 2012 01:35 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:25 ShiaoPi wrote:On September 02 2012 01:22 Shikyo wrote:
Oh btw.
If it's true that there's no advantage for upper bracket vs lower bracket it pretty much is ridiculous and destroys the whole purpose >_<
Also, amazing. The main advantage is not having to play a shitton of bo1's where you could get eliminated by "cheesy" or pocket strategy That still is pretty stupid. I mean let's say you lose the winner's finals. Then after you win 1 game(after losing, mind you), you're in even footing against the team you just lost to. Last 2 rounds of LB are Bo3 So this means that the team that loses the winners finals doesn't even have the hypotethical disadvantage of the bo1? Yes, they have the disadvantage of playing one more Bo3 instead So if the team who hasn't lost a set yet lose in the grand finals they get the disadvantage of losing and don't get the "disadvantage" of playing another bo3, you think that this is fair?
You might underestimate the strain an additional Bo3 in Dota puts on you
|
On September 02 2012 01:44 dtz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2012 01:42 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:41 rotegirte wrote:On September 02 2012 01:40 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:39 rotegirte wrote:On September 02 2012 01:35 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:25 ShiaoPi wrote:On September 02 2012 01:22 Shikyo wrote:
Oh btw.
If it's true that there's no advantage for upper bracket vs lower bracket it pretty much is ridiculous and destroys the whole purpose >_<
Also, amazing. The main advantage is not having to play a shitton of bo1's where you could get eliminated by "cheesy" or pocket strategy That still is pretty stupid. I mean let's say you lose the winner's finals. Then after you win 1 game(after losing, mind you), you're in even footing against the team you just lost to. Last 2 rounds of LB are Bo3 So this means that the team that loses the winners finals doesn't even have the hypotethical disadvantage of the bo1? Yes, they have the disadvantage of playing one more Bo3 instead So if the team who hasn't lost a set yet lose in the grand finals they get the disadvantage of losing and don't get the "disadvantage" of playing another bo3, you think that this is fair? The WB winner has an undeniable advantage of having played less game ( more fresh, more strategies in their pocket, etc) however small they are. You ( and many others) think that it is not a big enough advantage. Valve deem that it is.
Are you kidding me? This is a 1.6mil dollar tournament. The winner should have their right for the second life that everyone else gets, that's why it's called double elimination - you need to be eliminated twice.
First MLG with its incorrect extended series finals, then this Valve atrocity... Unbelievable no one knows how to run double elimination tournament. Maybe they should hire me.
|
Yeah I can't believe Valve went full MLG. Why do they even bother with double elimination if they can't do it properly? Just do group stages then.
even worse than MLG, if I'm reading this right.
|
On September 02 2012 01:45 rotegirte wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2012 01:42 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:41 rotegirte wrote:On September 02 2012 01:40 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:39 rotegirte wrote:On September 02 2012 01:35 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:25 ShiaoPi wrote:On September 02 2012 01:22 Shikyo wrote:
Oh btw.
If it's true that there's no advantage for upper bracket vs lower bracket it pretty much is ridiculous and destroys the whole purpose >_<
Also, amazing. The main advantage is not having to play a shitton of bo1's where you could get eliminated by "cheesy" or pocket strategy That still is pretty stupid. I mean let's say you lose the winner's finals. Then after you win 1 game(after losing, mind you), you're in even footing against the team you just lost to. Last 2 rounds of LB are Bo3 So this means that the team that loses the winners finals doesn't even have the hypotethical disadvantage of the bo1? Yes, they have the disadvantage of playing one more Bo3 instead So if the team who hasn't lost a set yet lose in the grand finals they get the disadvantage of losing and don't get the "disadvantage" of playing another bo3, you think that this is fair? You might underestimate the strain an additional Bo3 in Dota puts on you
I'd take an additional Bo3(punishment for losing winners finals) over losing immediately(punishment for losing grand finals for the winners bracket team) any day of the week. It's like a divine gift from the heavens, not a punishment.
|
I hate advantages in a bo3 or bo5. Makes it less exciting.
|
On September 02 2012 01:44 dtz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2012 01:42 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:41 rotegirte wrote:On September 02 2012 01:40 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:39 rotegirte wrote:On September 02 2012 01:35 Shikyo wrote:On September 02 2012 01:25 ShiaoPi wrote:On September 02 2012 01:22 Shikyo wrote:
Oh btw.
If it's true that there's no advantage for upper bracket vs lower bracket it pretty much is ridiculous and destroys the whole purpose >_<
Also, amazing. The main advantage is not having to play a shitton of bo1's where you could get eliminated by "cheesy" or pocket strategy That still is pretty stupid. I mean let's say you lose the winner's finals. Then after you win 1 game(after losing, mind you), you're in even footing against the team you just lost to. Last 2 rounds of LB are Bo3 So this means that the team that loses the winners finals doesn't even have the hypotethical disadvantage of the bo1? Yes, they have the disadvantage of playing one more Bo3 instead So if the team who hasn't lost a set yet lose in the grand finals they get the disadvantage of losing and don't get the "disadvantage" of playing another bo3, you think that this is fair? The WB winner has an undeniable advantage of having played less game ( more fresh, more strategies in their pocket, etc) however small they are. You ( and many others, me included) think that it is not a big enough advantage. Valve deem that it is.
While I can't look at the brackets right now (at work) that advantage is hardly undeniable given that teams that started out in the lower bracket could easily end up playing fewer games than those that ride straight through the winner's bracket because of the best of 1s.
|
On September 02 2012 01:47 Implenia wrote:
I hate advantages in a bo3 or bo5. Makes it less exciting.
Somehow in a 1.6mil tournament I'm more worried about the most deserving team winning instead of it being less exciting, am I alone?
Not to mention double elimination has a potential second Bo5, there's no advantage in the first Bo5.
|
Why do they always interview winter ? Is he the only one who can speak english in his team ?
|
On September 02 2012 01:47 Implenia wrote:
I hate advantages in a bo3 or bo5. Makes it less exciting.
Then run single elimination. There's a tradeoff between 'exciting' and 'more stable' to be made, but that doesn't mean you can mix and match tournament structure like it's a jigsaw.
|
either all the dota players are really short, or sheever is really tall
|
Is Winter a dwarf or is Sheever a giant ?
BTW is Purge gonna cast any game ?
|
On September 02 2012 01:49 BlitzerSC wrote:
Why do they always interview winter ? Is he the only one who can speak english in his team ?
Team captain.
|
On September 02 2012 01:49 Fatalize wrote:
Is Winter a dwarf or is Sheever a giant ?
BTW is Purge gonna cast any game ?
I don't think so.
|
|
|
Haha such a cute interview  .
|
I agree that playing fewer games is an advantage especially when games get long but the whole reason to use a double elimination format is to give every team 2 chances, no? Starting the grand finals 0:0 the only team who hasn't a second chance is the best team prior to the grand final.
In my opinion it should be: the team coming from the winner bracket has to win one bo3, the other team has to win 2 bo3s. It's anticlimatic and maybe boring but the correct way of playing the format in my understanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
