Your opinions about the BO1 format in GSL Code S - Page 5

Aus.Force

Australia1278 Posts

April 26 2011 00:39 GMT

#81

it works well imo. it has the same effect as a normal tourny, just games are played in different orders, with multiple opponents. there is less cheese now. and unfortunately code s is stacked, so of course some big names will go down each season. but thats what also makes it good. it forces everyone to stay on their toes, and be ready and willing to improve to stay up.

FataLe

New Zealand4501 Posts

April 26 2011 00:42 GMT

#82

It's fine. Wouldn't want it any other way. Tough luck if Code S players have to go to Up & Downs..
Think about Code B and A. Cut-throattttttt.

JesusOurSaviour

United Arab Emirates1141 Posts

April 26 2011 00:44 GMT

#83

On April 26 2011 03:31 Azzur wrote:
The "bo1" group format is used in the OSL and MSL and no one complains about it. But regardless, the group stages is effectively a bo3 but with the possibility of a player playing 3 different opponents. A bo1 implies that 1 loss would lead to elimination, which is not the case.

yep this statement sums the whole thing up. Koreans are pretty happy with it - OSL/MSL use the same format... and it's not BO1, you can leave your group by winning 2-0 or 2-1, and you can only leave your group by losing 2-0, or 2-1. Essentially it's BO3

turdburgler

England6749 Posts

April 26 2011 00:51 GMT

#84

i think they should make the groups round robin

Tarbosh

United States127 Posts

April 26 2011 01:04 GMT

#85

I don't mind it. I like it more than the format for Code A. I think that in both formats probably the same amount of deserving players move on to the Ro16, but I find the group stages to be more entertaining than a Bo3. The luck of the draw factor is more prominent in Code A, the two best players could potentially run into each other in the first round, which sucks.
The best player in the tournament already has the best chance to win, they don't need to make it easier for them. If they just wanted the top player to get all the money they would draw out the tournament with many more games played throughout, and it would get boring. I think the current format is a good balance of entertainment with potential for upsets.
It isn't really a true Bo1 anyway. You aren't eliminated if you lose 1 game.

Datum

United States371 Posts

April 26 2011 01:22 GMT

#86

First of all, let's call it group stage, because that's what it truly is.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a complete ladder (Bo3, Bo5, etc. in the first stage as opposed to groups). Tennis employs this quite succesfully. However, is is a problem without a ranking system. GSL seeds are only determined by previous performances in the GSL. The 5th best player could lose to the Bonjwa in the first round Best of 3. Because Mr. 5th Best performed poorly, he has the lowest seed in the next GSL, and continues to get screwed over once every two months.

A full bracket format only works when there are venues other than the one tournament that allow players to increase their rating and earn better seeds. If I lose to Roger Federer in the Australian Open, I have a full year to increase my standing before I have to play in the Australian Open again. Because of the way GSL seeds are determined, it is necessary to have a group stage to prevent players from repeatedly getting screwed over.

NoisyNinja

United States991 Posts

April 26 2011 01:52 GMT

#87

If I'm not confusing Code S GSL with something else, isn't that the best of the best? And shouldn't the best of the best have best out of x where x=/=1? I think that it should be at least BO3 for Code S GSL anything if I'm right about them being the best of the best.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 All

Please or register to reply.

Your opinions about the BO1 format in GSL Code S - Page 5

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming