|
On November 08 2010 08:45 Bearigator wrote:
They used a different system for some of their other games a long time ago. It was a best of 3 series system.
Ex: Player 1 beats Player 2 in a best of 3 early in the tournament.
They run back in to each other in the finals, it is now a best of 5.
IF Player 2 wins the first best of 5, another is played, since now they each have 1 series win on each other. The last series is played out as normal.
IF Player 1 wins the first best of 5, he wins the tournament outright.
It was always the best system imo. I think they scrapped it because a lot of people didn't understand how it worked, it wasn't very viewer friendly.
With their current system they potentially have a GRAND FINALS where potentially only two games could be played. Who in their right mind thinks that is ANY good. It's simply idiotic if the reason they went with this "extended series" was for "grudge match" purposes. Anyone going back through time realizes that double elimination tournaments when done in a Bo3 format only matter who wins or loses the series not what the score in the series was. All the series are meant to be in a vacuum within themselves, no series should affect any other.
|
Surely, winning in the earlier match already has an advantage: you go to the next round.
Call me captain obvious if you like, but to my mind each game in a tournament stands alone, no matter what the format. With that in mind, anything that gives one finalist an advantage over the other is artificial and goes completely against the idea of competitive sport in general.
I've always thought the MLG system was flawed but now that it's been brought to a game with a more sophisticated audience hopefully they will see the error in their ways.
My own personal preference, for what it's worth, is group play -> single elim brackets -> Bo5 or Bo7 finals
I don't mind double elim, but only when it's done right. Extended series is a travesty, 2x BoX is better, but personally i think that a longer single series is better. For double elim i see some merit to a 2x BoX if one finalist is undefeated. But if it went to single elim i'd like to see Bo5 instead of Bo3. The main thing, though, is just to do away with the extended series nonsense.
|
It's not unfair, since it applies to everybody. But it shouldn't apply to anybody IMO. Completely unnecessary.
|
Have you ever had a bad start to a tournament, maybe not being quite into it or in the zone yet, and getting out 2-0 in the first round? I have, after that I worked my way up all the way through the loser's bracket for hours and hours and I started playing much better. After that, i again faced the player who had knocked me out to the losers' bracket. It was an extended series and I won the first 2 games, but then ended up losing 4-3 in the extended series. This was in SSBM but that shouldn't really matter. Do you think that's fair?
Almost every player I know hates this rule, for a reason.
|
On November 08 2010 09:10 Shikyo wrote:
Have you ever had a bad start to a tournament, maybe not being quite into it or in the zone yet, and getting out 2-0 in the first round? I have, after that I worked my way up all the way through the loser's bracket for hours and hours and I started playing much better. After that, i again faced the player who had knocked me out to the losers' bracket. It was an extended series and I won the first 2 games, but then ended up losing 4-3 in the extended series. This was in SSBM but that shouldn't really matter. Do you think that's fair?
Almost every player I know hates this rule, for a reason.
Yes. It's irrelevant whether or not you or other people hate the rule in regards to its fairness.
|
On November 08 2010 08:29 PROJECTILE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 08:06 Nouar wrote:On November 08 2010 07:50 PROJECTILE wrote:On November 08 2010 07:44 Nouar wrote:On November 08 2010 07:40 PROJECTILE wrote:
The rule is fair if you're trying to determine the better player. In this case, any way you slice it, pain user won more games against nony (even if you give nony the game on LT that was cut short in which he had a big advantage). It felt like a lot of people were bigger fans of nony because of his longer history in the starcraft community and were whining because nony couldn't move on, but from an objective viewpoint, it's the right way to do things if you want the competition to be fair.
If you don't want it to be fair, then whatever, that's a totally different issue. Annnnd again again again (can you read previous pages ?) here's an example : Let's say Nony lost 2-1 in WB. He then loses to the same guy 2-2 (ahahahah) in the loser's bracket. Makes it 3-4. HE HAS NOT LOST TO ANYONE ELSE. PainUser wins 4-3. HE HAS LOST ANOTHER SERIES BEFORE THAT. Being out of a DOUBLE BRACKET system by losing 3-4 is fair to you ? PainUser got knocked out by losing a series in WB, then losing 2-1 (tying it 2-2 afterwards but virtually lost a series there), THEN LOSING A THIRD ONE after that. Ok ? You can argue both ways. Don't be an idiot (and presumptuous). It depends on what you value more as a standard for determining who is more deserving of moving on. Is it fair for painuser to be eliminated when he has a winning or even record against nony? You can make a case for both. What a bo3 double bracket values as a standard is a bo3. which mean a series. You have the right to lose ONE series throughout the tournament, this is the basis of a bo3 double bracket. You lose one, you're in LB, you lose two, you're out. Losing one serie and tying another 2-2 after winning it 2-1 getting you out is not normal. Losing two series and still being in is not normal. Having it depending on whether you play someone you already played or not, is not normal. Having to win less games in the grand final when you come from the loser bracket is not normal. The guy coming from the WB final (who has not lost any series) having the same advantage as the one meeting a random dude in the lb and being out after only one series is not normal. Should I continue ? The basic unit is one best of 3 series. The only time individual results into series should come into play are when there are group stages, for standings. You can not argue both ways if it can be unfair in one of those ways. If, as it is the case in this tournament, you count a bo3 as one series, then you might be 3-2 against someone, you STILL lost one series. (and are out since you already lost another one tossing you in LB) (one series must be absolutely incorrect grammatically speaking, but hey... it's late, forgive me :/) OHHH, fuck that, just count man... Being out of a tourney by losing 3-4 to one dude (1 fucking map gets you out in a double elimination tournament), and still being in when you get tossed in the LB, then lose again 2-1 (make it 2-2 after), and still being on the run. DOES IT SOUND NORMAL TO YOU ? If no, then consider using only single bo3 per round, and it will feel a lot simpler. Don't be so angry. You're not helping your argument. I understand what you're saying. It's not very complicated. The idea that the tourney is broken into "units" of BoX series is something you're assuming, not something that's necessarily true. Like I said, you can make an argument either way, but I don't agree with the idea that implicitly the "unit" of the tourney is a BoX series. It's whatever the organizers want it to be. I personally find it silly that you can be eliminated by someone when you have a winning record against them.
It's not silly. The best player ATM should win.
Say you're not feeling well or whatever and you lose 2-0 to a lesser player, sending you to losers bracket. Then you get some air, some advice, start to feel better. Suddenly you go on a become beast mode and 2-0 every opponent in your way. You should be the tournament champion. But in this system, you would have to win 4 games and not lose 2 games against this lesser player.
|
On November 08 2010 09:11 stangstang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 08:29 PROJECTILE wrote:On November 08 2010 08:06 Nouar wrote:On November 08 2010 07:50 PROJECTILE wrote:On November 08 2010 07:44 Nouar wrote:On November 08 2010 07:40 PROJECTILE wrote:
The rule is fair if you're trying to determine the better player. In this case, any way you slice it, pain user won more games against nony (even if you give nony the game on LT that was cut short in which he had a big advantage). It felt like a lot of people were bigger fans of nony because of his longer history in the starcraft community and were whining because nony couldn't move on, but from an objective viewpoint, it's the right way to do things if you want the competition to be fair.
If you don't want it to be fair, then whatever, that's a totally different issue. Annnnd again again again (can you read previous pages ?) here's an example : Let's say Nony lost 2-1 in WB. He then loses to the same guy 2-2 (ahahahah) in the loser's bracket. Makes it 3-4. HE HAS NOT LOST TO ANYONE ELSE. PainUser wins 4-3. HE HAS LOST ANOTHER SERIES BEFORE THAT. Being out of a DOUBLE BRACKET system by losing 3-4 is fair to you ? PainUser got knocked out by losing a series in WB, then losing 2-1 (tying it 2-2 afterwards but virtually lost a series there), THEN LOSING A THIRD ONE after that. Ok ? You can argue both ways. Don't be an idiot (and presumptuous). It depends on what you value more as a standard for determining who is more deserving of moving on. Is it fair for painuser to be eliminated when he has a winning or even record against nony? You can make a case for both. What a bo3 double bracket values as a standard is a bo3. which mean a series. You have the right to lose ONE series throughout the tournament, this is the basis of a bo3 double bracket. You lose one, you're in LB, you lose two, you're out. Losing one serie and tying another 2-2 after winning it 2-1 getting you out is not normal. Losing two series and still being in is not normal. Having it depending on whether you play someone you already played or not, is not normal. Having to win less games in the grand final when you come from the loser bracket is not normal. The guy coming from the WB final (who has not lost any series) having the same advantage as the one meeting a random dude in the lb and being out after only one series is not normal. Should I continue ? The basic unit is one best of 3 series. The only time individual results into series should come into play are when there are group stages, for standings. You can not argue both ways if it can be unfair in one of those ways. If, as it is the case in this tournament, you count a bo3 as one series, then you might be 3-2 against someone, you STILL lost one series. (and are out since you already lost another one tossing you in LB) (one series must be absolutely incorrect grammatically speaking, but hey... it's late, forgive me :/) OHHH, fuck that, just count man... Being out of a tourney by losing 3-4 to one dude (1 fucking map gets you out in a double elimination tournament), and still being in when you get tossed in the LB, then lose again 2-1 (make it 2-2 after), and still being on the run. DOES IT SOUND NORMAL TO YOU ? If no, then consider using only single bo3 per round, and it will feel a lot simpler. Don't be so angry. You're not helping your argument. I understand what you're saying. It's not very complicated. The idea that the tourney is broken into "units" of BoX series is something you're assuming, not something that's necessarily true. Like I said, you can make an argument either way, but I don't agree with the idea that implicitly the "unit" of the tourney is a BoX series. It's whatever the organizers want it to be. I personally find it silly that you can be eliminated by someone when you have a winning record against them. It's not silly. The best player ATM should win. Say you're not feeling well or whatever and you lose 2-0 to a lesser player, sending you to losers bracket. Then you get some air, some advice, start to feel better. Suddenly you go on a become beast mode and 2-0 every opponent in your way. You should be the tournament champion. But in this system, you would have to win 4 games and not lose 2 games against this lesser player.
Intangibles. You shouldn't have lost the first series.
|
On November 08 2010 09:11 PROJECTILE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 09:10 Shikyo wrote:
Have you ever had a bad start to a tournament, maybe not being quite into it or in the zone yet, and getting out 2-0 in the first round? I have, after that I worked my way up all the way through the loser's bracket for hours and hours and I started playing much better. After that, i again faced the player who had knocked me out to the losers' bracket. It was an extended series and I won the first 2 games, but then ended up losing 4-3 in the extended series. This was in SSBM but that shouldn't really matter. Do you think that's fair?
Almost every player I know hates this rule, for a reason. Yes. It's irrelevant whether or not you or other people hate the rule in regards to its fairness.
Let's say it was another player who knocked me to the losers' bracket at the start. I'd beat the guy 2-0 fair and square.
It's a double elimination, it's based on second chance. Just make it single elimination if you don't like that.
On November 08 2010 09:14 PROJECTILE wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 09:11 stangstang wrote:On November 08 2010 08:29 PROJECTILE wrote:On November 08 2010 08:06 Nouar wrote:On November 08 2010 07:50 PROJECTILE wrote:On November 08 2010 07:44 Nouar wrote:On November 08 2010 07:40 PROJECTILE wrote:
The rule is fair if you're trying to determine the better player. In this case, any way you slice it, pain user won more games against nony (even if you give nony the game on LT that was cut short in which he had a big advantage). It felt like a lot of people were bigger fans of nony because of his longer history in the starcraft community and were whining because nony couldn't move on, but from an objective viewpoint, it's the right way to do things if you want the competition to be fair.
If you don't want it to be fair, then whatever, that's a totally different issue. Annnnd again again again (can you read previous pages ?) here's an example : Let's say Nony lost 2-1 in WB. He then loses to the same guy 2-2 (ahahahah) in the loser's bracket. Makes it 3-4. HE HAS NOT LOST TO ANYONE ELSE. PainUser wins 4-3. HE HAS LOST ANOTHER SERIES BEFORE THAT. Being out of a DOUBLE BRACKET system by losing 3-4 is fair to you ? PainUser got knocked out by losing a series in WB, then losing 2-1 (tying it 2-2 afterwards but virtually lost a series there), THEN LOSING A THIRD ONE after that. Ok ? You can argue both ways. Don't be an idiot (and presumptuous). It depends on what you value more as a standard for determining who is more deserving of moving on. Is it fair for painuser to be eliminated when he has a winning or even record against nony? You can make a case for both. What a bo3 double bracket values as a standard is a bo3. which mean a series. You have the right to lose ONE series throughout the tournament, this is the basis of a bo3 double bracket. You lose one, you're in LB, you lose two, you're out. Losing one serie and tying another 2-2 after winning it 2-1 getting you out is not normal. Losing two series and still being in is not normal. Having it depending on whether you play someone you already played or not, is not normal. Having to win less games in the grand final when you come from the loser bracket is not normal. The guy coming from the WB final (who has not lost any series) having the same advantage as the one meeting a random dude in the lb and being out after only one series is not normal. Should I continue ? The basic unit is one best of 3 series. The only time individual results into series should come into play are when there are group stages, for standings. You can not argue both ways if it can be unfair in one of those ways. If, as it is the case in this tournament, you count a bo3 as one series, then you might be 3-2 against someone, you STILL lost one series. (and are out since you already lost another one tossing you in LB) (one series must be absolutely incorrect grammatically speaking, but hey... it's late, forgive me :/) OHHH, fuck that, just count man... Being out of a tourney by losing 3-4 to one dude (1 fucking map gets you out in a double elimination tournament), and still being in when you get tossed in the LB, then lose again 2-1 (make it 2-2 after), and still being on the run. DOES IT SOUND NORMAL TO YOU ? If no, then consider using only single bo3 per round, and it will feel a lot simpler. Don't be so angry. You're not helping your argument. I understand what you're saying. It's not very complicated. The idea that the tourney is broken into "units" of BoX series is something you're assuming, not something that's necessarily true. Like I said, you can make an argument either way, but I don't agree with the idea that implicitly the "unit" of the tourney is a BoX series. It's whatever the organizers want it to be. I personally find it silly that you can be eliminated by someone when you have a winning record against them. It's not silly. The best player ATM should win. Say you're not feeling well or whatever and you lose 2-0 to a lesser player, sending you to losers bracket. Then you get some air, some advice, start to feel better. Suddenly you go on a become beast mode and 2-0 every opponent in your way. You should be the tournament champion. But in this system, you would have to win 4 games and not lose 2 games against this lesser player. Intangibles. You shouldn't have lost the first series. Yeah you have no clue, just make single tournament tourneys. You're just a clueless newbie without experience or knowledge about anything. I guess you think it's fair only because it's in MLG ruleset.
|
On November 08 2010 09:16 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 09:11 PROJECTILE wrote:On November 08 2010 09:10 Shikyo wrote:
Have you ever had a bad start to a tournament, maybe not being quite into it or in the zone yet, and getting out 2-0 in the first round? I have, after that I worked my way up all the way through the loser's bracket for hours and hours and I started playing much better. After that, i again faced the player who had knocked me out to the losers' bracket. It was an extended series and I won the first 2 games, but then ended up losing 4-3 in the extended series. This was in SSBM but that shouldn't really matter. Do you think that's fair?
Almost every player I know hates this rule, for a reason. Yes. It's irrelevant whether or not you or other people hate the rule in regards to its fairness. Let's say it was another player who knocked me to the losers' bracket at the start. I'd beat the guy 2-0 fair and square. It's a double elimination, it's based on second chance. Just make it single elimination if you don't like that. Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 09:14 PROJECTILE wrote:On November 08 2010 09:11 stangstang wrote:On November 08 2010 08:29 PROJECTILE wrote:On November 08 2010 08:06 Nouar wrote:On November 08 2010 07:50 PROJECTILE wrote:On November 08 2010 07:44 Nouar wrote:On November 08 2010 07:40 PROJECTILE wrote:
The rule is fair if you're trying to determine the better player. In this case, any way you slice it, pain user won more games against nony (even if you give nony the game on LT that was cut short in which he had a big advantage). It felt like a lot of people were bigger fans of nony because of his longer history in the starcraft community and were whining because nony couldn't move on, but from an objective viewpoint, it's the right way to do things if you want the competition to be fair.
If you don't want it to be fair, then whatever, that's a totally different issue. Annnnd again again again (can you read previous pages ?) here's an example : Let's say Nony lost 2-1 in WB. He then loses to the same guy 2-2 (ahahahah) in the loser's bracket. Makes it 3-4. HE HAS NOT LOST TO ANYONE ELSE. PainUser wins 4-3. HE HAS LOST ANOTHER SERIES BEFORE THAT. Being out of a DOUBLE BRACKET system by losing 3-4 is fair to you ? PainUser got knocked out by losing a series in WB, then losing 2-1 (tying it 2-2 afterwards but virtually lost a series there), THEN LOSING A THIRD ONE after that. Ok ? You can argue both ways. Don't be an idiot (and presumptuous). It depends on what you value more as a standard for determining who is more deserving of moving on. Is it fair for painuser to be eliminated when he has a winning or even record against nony? You can make a case for both. What a bo3 double bracket values as a standard is a bo3. which mean a series. You have the right to lose ONE series throughout the tournament, this is the basis of a bo3 double bracket. You lose one, you're in LB, you lose two, you're out. Losing one serie and tying another 2-2 after winning it 2-1 getting you out is not normal. Losing two series and still being in is not normal. Having it depending on whether you play someone you already played or not, is not normal. Having to win less games in the grand final when you come from the loser bracket is not normal. The guy coming from the WB final (who has not lost any series) having the same advantage as the one meeting a random dude in the lb and being out after only one series is not normal. Should I continue ? The basic unit is one best of 3 series. The only time individual results into series should come into play are when there are group stages, for standings. You can not argue both ways if it can be unfair in one of those ways. If, as it is the case in this tournament, you count a bo3 as one series, then you might be 3-2 against someone, you STILL lost one series. (and are out since you already lost another one tossing you in LB) (one series must be absolutely incorrect grammatically speaking, but hey... it's late, forgive me :/) OHHH, fuck that, just count man... Being out of a tourney by losing 3-4 to one dude (1 fucking map gets you out in a double elimination tournament), and still being in when you get tossed in the LB, then lose again 2-1 (make it 2-2 after), and still being on the run. DOES IT SOUND NORMAL TO YOU ? If no, then consider using only single bo3 per round, and it will feel a lot simpler. Don't be so angry. You're not helping your argument. I understand what you're saying. It's not very complicated. The idea that the tourney is broken into "units" of BoX series is something you're assuming, not something that's necessarily true. Like I said, you can make an argument either way, but I don't agree with the idea that implicitly the "unit" of the tourney is a BoX series. It's whatever the organizers want it to be. I personally find it silly that you can be eliminated by someone when you have a winning record against them. It's not silly. The best player ATM should win. Say you're not feeling well or whatever and you lose 2-0 to a lesser player, sending you to losers bracket. Then you get some air, some advice, start to feel better. Suddenly you go on a become beast mode and 2-0 every opponent in your way. You should be the tournament champion. But in this system, you would have to win 4 games and not lose 2 games against this lesser player. Intangibles. You shouldn't have lost the first series. Yeah you have no clue, just make single tournament tourneys. You're just a clueless newbie without experience or knowledge about anything. I guess you think it's fair only because it's in MLG ruleset.
Ad hominem much? Counter the argument, not the arguer.
Consistent play is an important part of competition. Being inconsistent isn't a trait that should be rewarded in tourneys.
Go be a logic newb somewhere else.
|
Actually, scrub what i said about groups -> single elim earlier. The best system is a league, but MLG's attitude towards esports doesn't really run to something so long term. They're all about the short term excitement of one-off tournaments (like most other tournament organisers, sadly).
But if you REALLY want to determine who the best player is, a league where each player faces one another (preferably twice) is unquestionably superior. That way, people who argue that one-off matches are unfair can't make that argument any more but you still have a natural build-up to the big games because, like in almost every other sport when the players at the top of the league meet each other you still have the excitement of the one-off tournament.
I realise that's slightly off topic, but meh, it's the truth. Still, for the one-off style tournaments that esports is mostly limited to, i vote for groups -> single or double elim -> Bo5 or 7 final.
|
Even if you did, the other guy lost one, too.
Sorry PROJECTILE but your reasoning "you shouldn't have lost" is flawed, you HAVE THE RIGHT to lose ONCE in a double elim.
Then, "if you're lucky, you get out with it, if you're not lucky, you start another series X-2 while you both lost a boX in the tourney", is something based on pure luck/draw and not skill.
You keep on deliberately ignoring that the guy you meet again, LOST, TOO. You BOTH lost. Then you should be equal, it's another game in another part of the tournament, unrelated ! Then it's fair. It's not fair when it's based on drawing luck.
|
On November 08 2010 09:20 Zechs wrote:
Actually, scrub what i said about groups -> single elim earlier. The best system is a league, but MLG's attitude towards esports doesn't really run to something so long term. They're all about the short term excitement of one-off tournaments (like most other tournament organisers, sadly).
But if you REALLY want to determine who the best player is, a league where each player faces one another is unquestionably superior. I realise that's slightly off topic, but meh, it's the truth
This gets to the crux of it. It depends what you want out of your tournament. For pure entertainment value, it doesn't really matter what you do as long as it's exciting. A tourney almost never will find the best player, so it makes you wonder if setting a bunch of stipulations regarding winner bracket advantages is really in the best interest, since the tourney might as well be run for entertainment.
There certainly are ways of determining the most skilled player, but a 2 or 3 day tourney is not it.
|
Well, PROJECTILE, 'You shouldn't have lost the first series' is even less logical than stating the (by reading your posts) obvious fact that you're an idiot
I love when kids who have taken one elementary logic class or read enough message boards to learn the ad hominem fallacy try to get all superior.. hilarious.
|
On November 08 2010 09:23 Nouar wrote:
Even if you did, the other guy lost one, too.
Sorry PROJECTILE but your reasoning "you shouldn't have lost" is flawed, you HAVE THE RIGHT to lose ONCE in a double elim.
Then, "if you're lucky, you get out with it, if you're not lucky, you start another series X-2 while you both lost a boX in the tourney", is something based on pure luck/draw and not skill.
You keep on deliberately ignoring that the guy you meet again, LOST, TOO. You BOTH lost. Then you should be equal, it's another game in another part of the tournament, unrelated ! Then it's fair. It's not fair when it's based on drawing luck.
I've already addressed this. This is a much more complicated debate on whether or not you should measure tournaments in terms of BoX units. I'm not going to discuss this again.
|
On November 08 2010 09:19 PROJECTILE wrote:
Ad hominem much? Counter the argument, not the arguer.
Consistent play is an important part of competition. Being inconsistent isn't a trait that should be rewarded in tourneys.
Go be a logic newb somewhere else.
Seriously, HOW THE FUCK can you say being consistent is important when you say "let's favor the guy who won his first match but lost his second one"
????????
|
Extended series rule is stupid, especially when it extends into LB matches. The grand finals should be a bo5 with the person from winner bracket automatically getting a game for the advantage they deserve so even if they previously beat their opponent 2-1, the score for the winner would still have to be 4-x acting like a bo7 overall, but being a bo5 with advantage for the guy who would've won the tournament were it single elimination. Especially since with extended series, the WB finalist only gets advantage if he played and beat the LB finalist.
Basically, the only advantage should be in winner's bracket meaning only affect grand final.
|
I'm wrong and everyone is pointing out that fact to me in excruciating detail and I'm just realizing it now better "I'm done arguing with you" out of the thread PEACE
|
On November 08 2010 09:24 eckm wrote:
Well, PROJECTILE, 'You shouldn't have lost the first series' is even less logical than stating the (by reading your posts) obvious fact that you're an idiot
I love when kids who have taken one elementary logic class or read enough message boards to learn the ad hominem fallacy try to get all superior.. hilarious.
lol. Ad hominem is not always fallacious, but it was there.
Do you have anything to add? I can play this too!
you're a retard!
do I win?
People believe it or not have been countering my arguments without resorting to insults (i've admitted my position is not 100% fullproof but based on some subjective criteria).
Where's your degree in philosophy btw so we can really measure e-peens about logical debate?
|
On November 08 2010 09:26 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2010 09:19 PROJECTILE wrote:
Ad hominem much? Counter the argument, not the arguer.
Consistent play is an important part of competition. Being inconsistent isn't a trait that should be rewarded in tourneys.
Go be a logic newb somewhere else. Seriously, HOW THE FUCK can you say being consistent is important when you say "let's favor the guy who won his first match but lost his second one" ????????
Umm, he won in the long run? Isn't that sort of what consistency would measure?
I'm not sure you understand what you're arguing.
|
@PROJECTILE (i broke the quotes T_T)
Not to be too pedantic, but i think a tournament's design CAN make it more exciting. To me, it's about how artificial that excitement is. For example, single elimination Bo1 from start to finish would be insanely tense, but it pushes it too far. I don't think anyone would genuinely think a tournament like that was a good idea. But look at other sports: which tournaments bring the most spectators? The world cup (which has its own flaws in terms of fairness, btw: seeding is very artificial) is group play -> single elim -> one-off final game, with no extraneous bullshit.
However, if you just meant that it's more or less exciting based on what the players do in the games, then... yeah, obviously 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
