|
On August 16 2011 03:36 ak1knight wrote:
Why does the loser deserve equal footing? What if a tournament had Player A knock Player B down to the losers bracket, neither player loses any more games and they meet again in the final where Player B wins. Why should Player B get the money and glory? Both players have 1 loss and are 1-1 against each other, why does the first series not count?
The Grand Final moniker is used for a reason. The issue ends up stemming from eSports that utilize BoX configurations, and that's where it breaks down. Under another sport or eSport where one match is used, the aspect of the upper winning losing one and re-matching does make sense.
However, I dislike double elimination in BoX eSports because of this. I feel that there is a proper format that would ensure fairness and be a definitive stance of who is actually worthy of winning. It's actually something I've been working on for an article, something hopefully people can relate to.
Counter-Strike suffered from the same problem, where you have essentially four-to-six maps used for a league or tournament pool at any one time. You had the staples, plus whatever the flavor of the time happened to be, whether that be mill, or tuscan etc...
The utilization of double elimination for games centered around use of multiple maps and in BoX configurations is weak. You limit potential when limiting map pool from the entire competitive pool to Bo3/5.
|
On August 16 2011 00:40 Bobster wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 00:37 Cartel wrote:
I have to say im surprised at the polls suggesting most pple think its not fine the way it is. Same here. Then again, there are also always 25-30% of people who are fine with the shitty extended series rule at MLG, so it's hard to fathom wtf people are thinking sometimes. Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 00:29 JustPassingBy wrote:On August 16 2011 00:21 Bobster wrote:
It's as Chill says.
The player from the loser's bracket has to win two BoX because the first one knocks the winner down into the loser's bracket (figuratively) and enables them to play the second BoX on equal standing, thus deciding the ultimate winner.
Having it be just one BoX with a small advantage for the player coming from the WB essentially means that every other player can lose a series and still be in the tournament, except for the guy who won everything so far. He loses one series and doesn't get any second chances. Pretty ridiculous to punish a player for winning in the name of "viewer excitement".
The thing is called Double Elimination because you have to lose twice to be eliminated. Simple. No, I'd rather see this that all players are allowed to lose one series except in the grand finals, because it weights more than the other sets beforehand. That seems exceedingly arbitrary to me. It's a double elimination format except for the finals. I don't think that's logical or particularly fair. Double elimination is a good tournament format the way it is, I don't see a need to change it.
The "to me" is right. Everything is and always will be depending on one's point of view, fairness is no different from other absolute values such as good or evil, right or wrong, justice, etc.
(E.g. in your double elimination rule, one could object that a loss in the early rounds for example in a bo1 is different from a loss in the later rounds in a bo5 and that both shouldn't just be looked upon as the same.)
This opening asked what I'd rather see in the grand finals, and I agree that the player from the winners bracket get an advantage. However, as a viewer, I do not want that advantage to be so big that the winner of the match is already predetermined beforehand.
|
Most people seem to be missing the point. It is called "Double Elimination" because when you loose two matches you are out.
Most people translate this into a 'winners bracket' and a 'looser's bracket' when really Swiss draw would have paired them up similarly anyway. The fact of the matter is that everyone that has lost a match (i.e. is in the looser's bracket) and looses another match is eliminated. Everyone that has not lost (i.e. the winner's bracket) has to loose two matches to be eliminated.
When you get to the finals you have one player that has not lost a single match, and one player that has already lost one, so you need to play a second if the 'looser' beats the 'winner' as they will both be on one loss each.
Now if you don't like DE as a format then fine, but you need to make sure the seeding is good as with Single Elimination the finals can be played out in the first round if the pairings are bad, at least with DE the second best player will get through the looser's bracket even if they had to play the best player in the first round.
Problems arise when you arbitrarily start changing the values assigned to a match, e.g. as mentioned above going from a bo1 to a bo5, or in the OP when the finals are played as a bo7 with the winner starting off with a game or two in hand.
For tournaments where there are restrictions in the number of games that can be played, e.g. GOM with bo1 round robin going into a bo3 knockout, you need to separate the previous rounds from the 'finals' and can not carry wins / losses over since they were earned under different conditions. Another typical example is a bo3 Single Elimination tournament, with the Grand Finals being played as a bo5 or bo7. In this case performance on the previous rounds is not counted, the final is simply a straight up bo7 (and in this example would be irrelevant as both players would have perfect records going into the finals anyway  ).
|
On August 16 2011 02:47 akalarry wrote:
i also disagree with double elimination being anticlimactic. you can't say double elimination is anticlimactic based on sc2 tournaments because there has been no sc2 tournaments that actually used double elimination.
I believe Home Story Cup was DE and was not in the slightest bit anticlimactic.
|
On August 15 2011 23:50 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 22:59 Ballack wrote:
I'm not saying the system isn't fair, the guy from the winners bracket has so far been the best player, and he deserves a headstart, but I do think the head start he gets in these tournaments is over the top. What I would suggest is the big tournaments having a normal best of 7 for finals, where the guy from the winners bracket leads 1-0 when entering game 1. So you basically mean like in the Homestory Cup?
I really liked homestory cup's finals more than any other double elim final for this reason - Other ones took so much excitement out of the final games, knowing that the player on top needed fully half as many games to win the final as the player from the loser's bracket. Can you imagine something like this happening at an MLG or Blizzard invitational (Momentarily ignoring the extended series rule mucking up an MLG final even more...)
Sheth from losers bracket, naniwa from winner's bracket:
First final match
Sheth 2
Naniwa 0
Second final match
Sheth 1
Naniwa 2
A final looking like that would leave such a bad taste in my mouth. I vote for the BO7 with a 1 game advantage for the winner's bracket player.
On August 17 2011 01:05 MrCeeJ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 02:47 akalarry wrote:
i also disagree with double elimination being anticlimactic. you can't say double elimination is anticlimactic based on sc2 tournaments because there has been no sc2 tournaments that actually used double elimination. I believe Home Story Cup was DE and was not in the slightest bit anticlimactic.
MLG? Blizzard's recent B.net invitationals?
|
On August 17 2011 01:05 MrCeeJ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 02:47 akalarry wrote:
i also disagree with double elimination being anticlimactic. you can't say double elimination is anticlimactic based on sc2 tournaments because there has been no sc2 tournaments that actually used double elimination. I believe Home Story Cup was DE and was not in the slightest bit anticlimactic.
It was also an unfair implementation of Double Elimination, it wasn't real double elimination, Naniwa only lost one set and was eliminated, it's exactly what people are talking about. Great tournament, I didn't really mind that it wasn't fair because of the general atmosphere but yeah, one player didn't get two chances at being eliminated/staying in the tournament. As far as I'm concerned, everyone has to be included in double elimination for it to actually be called double elimination, otherwise it's "Double elimination(for everyone except that guy".
The Battle.net Invitational was real double elimination I believe, it was Bo3s all the way through, with the final LB player having to win two Bo3s and the WB finalist having to win one. That's how double elimination is supposed to be.
Otherwise use single elimination and make the games a Bo5 or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
