|
|
On March 11 2012 07:23 .syL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 Talin wrote:On March 11 2012 07:07 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 06:59 Vaelone wrote:I enjoyed the tournament, was something new and different and I feel sorry over the people bitching about the format considering it wasn't supposed to be a serious tournament at all and rematch didn't even cross my mind even though I'm aware of how double elimination usually works. Anyway from wikipedia:
The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games. The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the Winners' Bracket champion needs to beat the Losers' Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the Losers' Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice.
In some tournaments, however, the final game is always winner-take-all, or always a best-of-three set of games, with the usual advantage of the last Winner's Bracket team ignored.
But keep on whining EG fans, it would have been the same system even if EG came from lower bracket. At least they had the advantage of playing one match less unless if I lost count somewhere. So because some tournaments are use a stupid set up, it makes it not stupid? No, thats not how it works. Liquid fans would be upset if they were in EG's situation too. It's stupid to call tournament format stupid. You can dislike it, that's your choice. There are obviously arguments that go both ways in favor of both options, otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen every single time there's a double-elim tournament LR thread. I get it, it's a (much) less popular option, just like PL format is now a lot less popular than WL for team leagues. But it's all about preference (of the audience and organizers). Besides, I'm not even sure if it was intended to be like this by design or it was agreed upon due to time constraints in this case. How is it stupid to call the format stupid? It is. The whole point of double elimination is to give each team a second chance. In this format, every team BUT EG got a second chance. How is that not stupid? You make it sound as if EG was singled out, when in this tournament format the only thing that happens is reducing the advantage you get from winning the upper bracket. If that were unfair, it would be beneficial to intentionally lose a game (to get that second chance). Of course, it's not.
In this situation EG was singled out, thats just how the tournament played out. Obviously TB didn't mastermind this format to fuck over EG, thats not way I mean at all. And it didn't reduce the advantage from winning the upper bracket, it completely eliminated the advantage of winning the upper bracket. In this situation, EG didn't enjoy the benefits of double elim like the rest of the teams. That is unfair.
|
On March 11 2012 07:15 ohbi wrote:
You dont know what was said off camera or what was agreed before hand do you? Please stop manufacturing issues where there are none. Most of us enjoyed it as it was, and I bet most would want it to happen again AS IT IS.
Dont ruin it for the rest by insisting on having the last word.
I'm assuming the players were told the same about the tourney that we were told; that it was a winner/loser bracket double elim tourney. Why would HuK go into the tourney knowing it would be a single-series final, play through it, and THEN be pissed off about the single-series final? My common sense told me that the players thought they were playing one format when it turned out to be another.
You not caring about a tournament that fails to give equal chance to all bracketed players means you could give a damn about whether the players are happy. Good luck maintaining an entertainment industry like that.
Remember, TB, this is not a failure of the whole tournament. This is simply a prime example of Day[9]'s wisdom. This mistake you made is simply an arrow pointing you in the wrong direction. Fix that one little thing, and the tourney will pwn next time :D
|
On March 11 2012 07:26 Roxor9999 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:23 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 Talin wrote:On March 11 2012 07:07 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 06:59 Vaelone wrote:I enjoyed the tournament, was something new and different and I feel sorry over the people bitching about the format considering it wasn't supposed to be a serious tournament at all and rematch didn't even cross my mind even though I'm aware of how double elimination usually works. Anyway from wikipedia:
The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games. The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the Winners' Bracket champion needs to beat the Losers' Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the Losers' Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice.
In some tournaments, however, the final game is always winner-take-all, or always a best-of-three set of games, with the usual advantage of the last Winner's Bracket team ignored.
But keep on whining EG fans, it would have been the same system even if EG came from lower bracket. At least they had the advantage of playing one match less unless if I lost count somewhere. So because some tournaments are use a stupid set up, it makes it not stupid? No, thats not how it works. Liquid fans would be upset if they were in EG's situation too. It's stupid to call tournament format stupid. You can dislike it, that's your choice. There are obviously arguments that go both ways in favor of both options, otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen every single time there's a double-elim tournament LR thread. I get it, it's a (much) less popular option, just like PL format is now a lot less popular than WL for team leagues. But it's all about preference (of the audience and organizers). Besides, I'm not even sure if it was intended to be like this by design or it was agreed upon due to time constraints in this case. How is it stupid to call the format stupid? It is. The whole point of double elimination is to give each team a second chance. In this format, every team BUT EG got a second chance. How is that not stupid? You make it sound as if EG was singled out, when in this tournament format the only thing that happens is reducing the advantage you get from winning the upper bracket. If that were unfair, it would be beneficial to intentionally lose a game (to get that second chance). Of course, it's not. The advantage from winning the winners final isn't reduced, it is totally nonexistent. There is no disadvantage to losing a game in this format. Which, in my opinion, isn't fair.
???
Of course there is. Two teams meet in the winner bracket finals. The winner goes directly to the grand finals, the loser has to play another game to qualify, which he can potentially lose. As was demonstrated in THIS VERY TOURNAMENT, when quantic lost to EG and then dropped out of the tourney vs liquid. And the earlier you drop down to the lower bracket, the more games you have to play (and win) to reach the finals.
|
On March 11 2012 07:29 .syL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:26 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:23 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 Talin wrote:On March 11 2012 07:07 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 06:59 Vaelone wrote:I enjoyed the tournament, was something new and different and I feel sorry over the people bitching about the format considering it wasn't supposed to be a serious tournament at all and rematch didn't even cross my mind even though I'm aware of how double elimination usually works. Anyway from wikipedia:
The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games. The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the Winners' Bracket champion needs to beat the Losers' Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the Losers' Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice.
In some tournaments, however, the final game is always winner-take-all, or always a best-of-three set of games, with the usual advantage of the last Winner's Bracket team ignored.
But keep on whining EG fans, it would have been the same system even if EG came from lower bracket. At least they had the advantage of playing one match less unless if I lost count somewhere. So because some tournaments are use a stupid set up, it makes it not stupid? No, thats not how it works. Liquid fans would be upset if they were in EG's situation too. It's stupid to call tournament format stupid. You can dislike it, that's your choice. There are obviously arguments that go both ways in favor of both options, otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen every single time there's a double-elim tournament LR thread. I get it, it's a (much) less popular option, just like PL format is now a lot less popular than WL for team leagues. But it's all about preference (of the audience and organizers). Besides, I'm not even sure if it was intended to be like this by design or it was agreed upon due to time constraints in this case. How is it stupid to call the format stupid? It is. The whole point of double elimination is to give each team a second chance. In this format, every team BUT EG got a second chance. How is that not stupid? You make it sound as if EG was singled out, when in this tournament format the only thing that happens is reducing the advantage you get from winning the upper bracket. If that were unfair, it would be beneficial to intentionally lose a game (to get that second chance). Of course, it's not. The advantage from winning the winners final isn't reduced, it is totally nonexistent. There is no disadvantage to losing a game in this format. Which, in my opinion, isn't fair. ??? Of course there is. Two teams meet in the winner bracket finals. The winner goes directly to the grand finals, the loser has to play another game to qualify, which he can potentially lose. As was demonstrated in THIS VERY TOURNAMENT, when quantic lost to EG and then dropped out of the tourney vs liquid. And the earlier you drop down to the lower bracket, the more games you have to play (and win) to reach the finals.
You don't have to win more games you have to win the same amount of games and you have more games to do so which makes it easier.
|
How do people even begin to think that tournament rules is even remotely important in a random monobattle tournament? I mean come on, really?
I couldn't watch this live but I'm sure it was absolutely awesome. Gonna catch up on the vods as soon as I can!
|
On March 11 2012 07:29 .syL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:26 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:23 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 Talin wrote:On March 11 2012 07:07 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 06:59 Vaelone wrote:I enjoyed the tournament, was something new and different and I feel sorry over the people bitching about the format considering it wasn't supposed to be a serious tournament at all and rematch didn't even cross my mind even though I'm aware of how double elimination usually works. Anyway from wikipedia:
The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games. The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the Winners' Bracket champion needs to beat the Losers' Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the Losers' Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice.
In some tournaments, however, the final game is always winner-take-all, or always a best-of-three set of games, with the usual advantage of the last Winner's Bracket team ignored.
But keep on whining EG fans, it would have been the same system even if EG came from lower bracket. At least they had the advantage of playing one match less unless if I lost count somewhere. So because some tournaments are use a stupid set up, it makes it not stupid? No, thats not how it works. Liquid fans would be upset if they were in EG's situation too. It's stupid to call tournament format stupid. You can dislike it, that's your choice. There are obviously arguments that go both ways in favor of both options, otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen every single time there's a double-elim tournament LR thread. I get it, it's a (much) less popular option, just like PL format is now a lot less popular than WL for team leagues. But it's all about preference (of the audience and organizers). Besides, I'm not even sure if it was intended to be like this by design or it was agreed upon due to time constraints in this case. How is it stupid to call the format stupid? It is. The whole point of double elimination is to give each team a second chance. In this format, every team BUT EG got a second chance. How is that not stupid? You make it sound as if EG was singled out, when in this tournament format the only thing that happens is reducing the advantage you get from winning the upper bracket. If that were unfair, it would be beneficial to intentionally lose a game (to get that second chance). Of course, it's not. The advantage from winning the winners final isn't reduced, it is totally nonexistent. There is no disadvantage to losing a game in this format. Which, in my opinion, isn't fair. ??? Of course there is. Two teams meet in the winner bracket finals. The winner goes directly to the grand finals, the loser has to play another game to qualify, which he can potentially lose. As was demonstrated in THIS VERY TOURNAMENT, when quantic lost to EG and then dropped out of the tourney vs liquid. And the earlier you drop down to the lower bracket, the more games you have to play (and win) to reach the finals.
Every team had to lose two series to get knocked out of this tournament except for EG. How is that fair?
|
On March 11 2012 07:29 .syL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:26 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:23 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 Talin wrote:On March 11 2012 07:07 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 06:59 Vaelone wrote:I enjoyed the tournament, was something new and different and I feel sorry over the people bitching about the format considering it wasn't supposed to be a serious tournament at all and rematch didn't even cross my mind even though I'm aware of how double elimination usually works. Anyway from wikipedia:
The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games. The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the Winners' Bracket champion needs to beat the Losers' Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the Losers' Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice.
In some tournaments, however, the final game is always winner-take-all, or always a best-of-three set of games, with the usual advantage of the last Winner's Bracket team ignored.
But keep on whining EG fans, it would have been the same system even if EG came from lower bracket. At least they had the advantage of playing one match less unless if I lost count somewhere. So because some tournaments are use a stupid set up, it makes it not stupid? No, thats not how it works. Liquid fans would be upset if they were in EG's situation too. It's stupid to call tournament format stupid. You can dislike it, that's your choice. There are obviously arguments that go both ways in favor of both options, otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen every single time there's a double-elim tournament LR thread. I get it, it's a (much) less popular option, just like PL format is now a lot less popular than WL for team leagues. But it's all about preference (of the audience and organizers). Besides, I'm not even sure if it was intended to be like this by design or it was agreed upon due to time constraints in this case. How is it stupid to call the format stupid? It is. The whole point of double elimination is to give each team a second chance. In this format, every team BUT EG got a second chance. How is that not stupid? You make it sound as if EG was singled out, when in this tournament format the only thing that happens is reducing the advantage you get from winning the upper bracket. If that were unfair, it would be beneficial to intentionally lose a game (to get that second chance). Of course, it's not. The advantage from winning the winners final isn't reduced, it is totally nonexistent. There is no disadvantage to losing a game in this format. Which, in my opinion, isn't fair. ??? Of course there is. Two teams meet in the winner bracket finals. The winner goes directly to the grand finals, the loser has to play another game to qualify, which he can potentially lose. As was demonstrated in THIS VERY TOURNAMENT, when quantic lost to EG and then dropped out of the tourney vs liquid. And the earlier you drop down to the lower bracket, the more games you have to play (and win) to reach the finals.
EG didn't lose anything until the finals.
For them it wasn't double elimination, it ended up being single elimination. They lost once, and were eliminated.
For everyone else, it was double eliminated. They had to lose twice to get knocked out.
EG lost once and got knocked out, everyone else had to lose twice to get knocked out.
EG were disadvantaged because the competition they played wasn't double elimination.
|
On March 11 2012 07:28 Shantastic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:15 ohbi wrote:
You dont know what was said off camera or what was agreed before hand do you? Please stop manufacturing issues where there are none. Most of us enjoyed it as it was, and I bet most would want it to happen again AS IT IS.
Dont ruin it for the rest by insisting on having the last word. I'm assuming the players were told the same about the tourney that we were told; that it was a winner/loser bracket double elim tourney. Why would HuK go into the tourney knowing it would be a single-series final, play through it, and THEN be pissed off about the single-series final? My common sense told me that the players thought they were playing one format when it turned out to be another. You not caring about a tournament that fails to give equal chance to all bracketed players means you could give a damn about whether the players are happy. Good luck maintaining an entertainment industry like that. Remember, TB, this is not a failure of the whole tournament. This is simply a prime example of Day[9]'s wisdom. This mistake you made is simply an arrow pointing you in the wrong direction. Fix that one little thing, and the tourney will pwn next time :D
Liquid'Sheth on Reddit:
"Above all else we should thank TB for the effort he put into this.
He was Organizer, Manager, Admin and Caster. His event ran extremely smoothly.
Despite HuK having a slight issue with the set up (which we all knew before hand and agreed to), it was basically drama free.
Sadly though any drama can ruin an event if that's all people remember. Hopefully people remember the funny things that happened, all of the players who got to play as a team, and the good casting.
So, if you enjoyed it, why not send a happy message to the sponsor?
THANK YOU TOTALBISCUIT! <3"
- They knew about it before.
|
Great work with the tournament TB!
|
I missed this, will there be vods?
|
On March 11 2012 07:30 Roxor9999 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:29 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:26 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:23 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 Talin wrote:On March 11 2012 07:07 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 06:59 Vaelone wrote:I enjoyed the tournament, was something new and different and I feel sorry over the people bitching about the format considering it wasn't supposed to be a serious tournament at all and rematch didn't even cross my mind even though I'm aware of how double elimination usually works. Anyway from wikipedia:
The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games. The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the Winners' Bracket champion needs to beat the Losers' Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the Losers' Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice.
In some tournaments, however, the final game is always winner-take-all, or always a best-of-three set of games, with the usual advantage of the last Winner's Bracket team ignored.
But keep on whining EG fans, it would have been the same system even if EG came from lower bracket. At least they had the advantage of playing one match less unless if I lost count somewhere. So because some tournaments are use a stupid set up, it makes it not stupid? No, thats not how it works. Liquid fans would be upset if they were in EG's situation too. It's stupid to call tournament format stupid. You can dislike it, that's your choice. There are obviously arguments that go both ways in favor of both options, otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen every single time there's a double-elim tournament LR thread. I get it, it's a (much) less popular option, just like PL format is now a lot less popular than WL for team leagues. But it's all about preference (of the audience and organizers). Besides, I'm not even sure if it was intended to be like this by design or it was agreed upon due to time constraints in this case. How is it stupid to call the format stupid? It is. The whole point of double elimination is to give each team a second chance. In this format, every team BUT EG got a second chance. How is that not stupid? You make it sound as if EG was singled out, when in this tournament format the only thing that happens is reducing the advantage you get from winning the upper bracket. If that were unfair, it would be beneficial to intentionally lose a game (to get that second chance). Of course, it's not. The advantage from winning the winners final isn't reduced, it is totally nonexistent. There is no disadvantage to losing a game in this format. Which, in my opinion, isn't fair. ??? Of course there is. Two teams meet in the winner bracket finals. The winner goes directly to the grand finals, the loser has to play another game to qualify, which he can potentially lose. As was demonstrated in THIS VERY TOURNAMENT, when quantic lost to EG and then dropped out of the tourney vs liquid. And the earlier you drop down to the lower bracket, the more games you have to play (and win) to reach the finals. You don't have to win more games you have to win the same amount of games and you have more games to do so which makes it easier.
You don't understand how a bracket tournament works, so I'll stop arguing at this point.
|
On March 11 2012 07:13 .syL wrote: The only important thing is consistency insofar as that at no point in the tournament should a team benefit from intentionally losing a game.
I invite you to tell me how a tournament where a player can win without playing better than everyone else overall is better than a tournament where the player must overall outplay all the other players in order to win.
|
On March 11 2012 07:31 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:29 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:26 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:23 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 Talin wrote:On March 11 2012 07:07 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 06:59 Vaelone wrote:I enjoyed the tournament, was something new and different and I feel sorry over the people bitching about the format considering it wasn't supposed to be a serious tournament at all and rematch didn't even cross my mind even though I'm aware of how double elimination usually works. Anyway from wikipedia:
The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games. The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the Winners' Bracket champion needs to beat the Losers' Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the Losers' Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice.
In some tournaments, however, the final game is always winner-take-all, or always a best-of-three set of games, with the usual advantage of the last Winner's Bracket team ignored.
But keep on whining EG fans, it would have been the same system even if EG came from lower bracket. At least they had the advantage of playing one match less unless if I lost count somewhere. So because some tournaments are use a stupid set up, it makes it not stupid? No, thats not how it works. Liquid fans would be upset if they were in EG's situation too. It's stupid to call tournament format stupid. You can dislike it, that's your choice. There are obviously arguments that go both ways in favor of both options, otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen every single time there's a double-elim tournament LR thread. I get it, it's a (much) less popular option, just like PL format is now a lot less popular than WL for team leagues. But it's all about preference (of the audience and organizers). Besides, I'm not even sure if it was intended to be like this by design or it was agreed upon due to time constraints in this case. How is it stupid to call the format stupid? It is. The whole point of double elimination is to give each team a second chance. In this format, every team BUT EG got a second chance. How is that not stupid? You make it sound as if EG was singled out, when in this tournament format the only thing that happens is reducing the advantage you get from winning the upper bracket. If that were unfair, it would be beneficial to intentionally lose a game (to get that second chance). Of course, it's not. The advantage from winning the winners final isn't reduced, it is totally nonexistent. There is no disadvantage to losing a game in this format. Which, in my opinion, isn't fair. ??? Of course there is. Two teams meet in the winner bracket finals. The winner goes directly to the grand finals, the loser has to play another game to qualify, which he can potentially lose. As was demonstrated in THIS VERY TOURNAMENT, when quantic lost to EG and then dropped out of the tourney vs liquid. And the earlier you drop down to the lower bracket, the more games you have to play (and win) to reach the finals. EG didn't lose anything until the finals. For them it wasn't double elimination, it ended up being single elimination. They lost once, and were eliminated. For everyone else, it was double eliminated. They had to lose twice to get knocked out. EG lost once and got knocked out, everyone else had to lose twice to get knocked out. EG were disadvantaged because the competition they played wasn't double elimination.
Ok, so then they should have intentionally lost the winner bracket finals, you know, in order to not be at a disadvantage, right?
|
Why the hell people are critisizing the double elim as it were done ?
All teams are equal in the beggining and there is NO incentive to loose any game.
That's enough to say it's fair. The winner bracket winner have the "disadavatage" that they are only allowed to loose one serie (but well they have it when they already have won everything), but this serie is a Bo5.
The reason of double elim format is that a player (here a team) play at least 2 short series before going down, and it is respected.
I really prefer TB version, because that leads to a real grandfinal (the same way you have in a single elimination tournament), instead of half-assed finals you get in double elimination tournament (MLG finals are not particulary great, most of the time it's the end of looser bracket tthat is really interesting).
As far as "fairness" goes, I don't give a **** and as a spectator you shouldn't
|
United Kingdom3249 Posts
Had this running in the background for most of the afternoon, and greatly enjoyed the commentary. Was great hearing Chill again and it sounded like a splendid event.
Sorry to hear about the drama at the end. I hope that the people that matter will continue to do what they are doing, thank you so much for providing the entertainment. And thank you for contributing to a fantastic charity.
As far as the rest, it just feels good to not interact with this community. I will tune in and enjoy the stuff that is being presented to me, I love the game, I love watching players and this certainly was a different look into the scene. Frankly, it is nice to watch it without having any interaction with the people who decided that this was the time and place to moan and complain; it feels good to not have to listen to the ones that never want to enjoy the good and thank the providers for giving.
|
On March 11 2012 07:38 .syL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:30 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:29 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:26 Roxor9999 wrote:On March 11 2012 07:23 .syL wrote:On March 11 2012 07:18 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 07:13 Talin wrote:On March 11 2012 07:07 jmbthirteen wrote:On March 11 2012 06:59 Vaelone wrote:I enjoyed the tournament, was something new and different and I feel sorry over the people bitching about the format considering it wasn't supposed to be a serious tournament at all and rematch didn't even cross my mind even though I'm aware of how double elimination usually works. Anyway from wikipedia:
The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games. The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the Winners' Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the Winners' Bracket champion needs to beat the Losers' Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the Losers' Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice.
In some tournaments, however, the final game is always winner-take-all, or always a best-of-three set of games, with the usual advantage of the last Winner's Bracket team ignored.
But keep on whining EG fans, it would have been the same system even if EG came from lower bracket. At least they had the advantage of playing one match less unless if I lost count somewhere. So because some tournaments are use a stupid set up, it makes it not stupid? No, thats not how it works. Liquid fans would be upset if they were in EG's situation too. It's stupid to call tournament format stupid. You can dislike it, that's your choice. There are obviously arguments that go both ways in favor of both options, otherwise this discussion wouldn't happen every single time there's a double-elim tournament LR thread. I get it, it's a (much) less popular option, just like PL format is now a lot less popular than WL for team leagues. But it's all about preference (of the audience and organizers). Besides, I'm not even sure if it was intended to be like this by design or it was agreed upon due to time constraints in this case. How is it stupid to call the format stupid? It is. The whole point of double elimination is to give each team a second chance. In this format, every team BUT EG got a second chance. How is that not stupid? You make it sound as if EG was singled out, when in this tournament format the only thing that happens is reducing the advantage you get from winning the upper bracket. If that were unfair, it would be beneficial to intentionally lose a game (to get that second chance). Of course, it's not. The advantage from winning the winners final isn't reduced, it is totally nonexistent. There is no disadvantage to losing a game in this format. Which, in my opinion, isn't fair. ??? Of course there is. Two teams meet in the winner bracket finals. The winner goes directly to the grand finals, the loser has to play another game to qualify, which he can potentially lose. As was demonstrated in THIS VERY TOURNAMENT, when quantic lost to EG and then dropped out of the tourney vs liquid. And the earlier you drop down to the lower bracket, the more games you have to play (and win) to reach the finals. You don't have to win more games you have to win the same amount of games and you have more games to do so which makes it easier. You don't understand how a bracket tournament works, so I'll stop arguing at this point.
I think I will stop too since i can't convince you that you're wrong and saying that someone is stupid is not a valid argument btw.
|
On March 11 2012 07:33 Spooony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2012 07:28 Shantastic wrote:On March 11 2012 07:15 ohbi wrote:
You dont know what was said off camera or what was agreed before hand do you? Please stop manufacturing issues where there are none. Most of us enjoyed it as it was, and I bet most would want it to happen again AS IT IS.
Dont ruin it for the rest by insisting on having the last word. I'm assuming the players were told the same about the tourney that we were told; that it was a winner/loser bracket double elim tourney. Why would HuK go into the tourney knowing it would be a single-series final, play through it, and THEN be pissed off about the single-series final? My common sense told me that the players thought they were playing one format when it turned out to be another. You not caring about a tournament that fails to give equal chance to all bracketed players means you could give a damn about whether the players are happy. Good luck maintaining an entertainment industry like that. Remember, TB, this is not a failure of the whole tournament. This is simply a prime example of Day[9]'s wisdom. This mistake you made is simply an arrow pointing you in the wrong direction. Fix that one little thing, and the tourney will pwn next time :D Liquid'Sheth on Reddit:"Above all else we should thank TB for the effort he put into this. He was Organizer, Manager, Admin and Caster. His event ran extremely smoothly. Despite HuK having a slight issue with the set up (which we all knew before hand and agreed to), it was basically drama free. Sadly though any drama can ruin an event if that's all people remember. Hopefully people remember the funny things that happened, all of the players who got to play as a team, and the good casting. So, if you enjoyed it, why not send a happy message to the sponsor? THANK YOU TOTALBISCUIT! <3" - They knew about it before.
If so, HuK's post was not justified, and my argument that anyone got screwed over is clearly wrong, and I'll happily admit to that.
But single-series final in double elim is still a stupid idea.
|
On March 11 2012 07:41 kubiks wrote:
Why the hell people are critisizing the double elim as it were done ?
All teams are equal in the beggining and there is NO incentive to loose any game.
That's enough to say it's fair. The winner bracket winner have the "disadavatage" that they are only allowed to loose one serie (but well they have it when they already have won everything), but this serie is a Bo5.
The reason of double elim format is that a player (here a team) play at least 2 short series before going down, and it is respected.
I really prefer TB version, because that leads to a real grandfinal (the same way you have in a single elimination tournament), instead of half-assed finals you get in double elimination tournament (MLG finals are not particulary great, most of the time it's the end of looser bracket tthat is really interesting).
As far as "fairness" goes, I don't give a **** and as a spectator you shouldn't
wow, we shouldn't care about fairness of a tournament? Well damn, lets just start using map hacks too!
|
I remember when the StarCraft community was the best internet community. Ah, the past, you glorious, sexy lady!
Awesome tournament TB!
|
On March 11 2012 07:43 Porcelina wrote:
Had this running in the background for most of the afternoon, and greatly enjoyed the commentary. Was great hearing Chill again and it sounded like a splendid event.
Sorry to hear about the drama at the end. I hope that the people that matter will continue to do what they are doing, thank you so much for providing the entertainment. And thank you for contributing to a fantastic charity.
As far as the rest, it just feels good to not interact with this community. I will tune in and enjoy the stuff that is being presented to me, I love the game, I love watching players and this certainly was a different look into the scene. Frankly, it is nice to watch it without having any interaction with the people who decided that this was the time and place to moan and complain; it feels good to not have to listen to the ones that never want to enjoy the good and thank the providers for giving.
Well put. I agree 100%.
+1 Karma for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
Pro Random Monobattles Tournament
