|
I agree with the feeling there is no jeopardy when it comes to the finals of a tourney since the person in the losers brackets has to win two sets. The thing is, its fair but not exciting.
I think the whole format needs to change IMO.
I know people like the whole losers/winners bracket, it creates great stories of comebacks etc but as stated the finals can be a bit lack luster since its fair from easy to comeback.
Instead why not have all games played in a best of 7 once you get past the top 32 and the finals a best of 9? You cant deny that a BO 7 or 9 is a good enough setting to determine who is the better player (at that event).
And if there is still need for a player comeback storyline then why not have a just the open or lower levels have a winner/losers bracket where its all BO3's to get you into the top 32. You can keep the whole "the winner of the losers bracket" has to win 2 sets of BO7 etc but this is all just to get into the top 32/16 whatever. From there on in its all Single elimination BO7/9 etc.
Im not 100% on how mlg setup their tournaments but it might sound similar, but IPL (Season 1 at least) etc is kinda weird to have the finals of a tournament come down to the winner of winners bracket against the winner of the losers.Kinda anticlimactic unless they make a massive comeback which is rare.
|
the double BoX makes sense, but i think single BoX that's longer is both better for the fans and still not entirely unfair
|
Calgary25998 Posts
The people voting "Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game" are bending the rules of double elim to try to create excitement at the cost of fairness. I can't back that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I prefer single elimination tournaments past Ro16 anyways.
|
For the spectators, the up by 1 game rule is better because it keeps suspense and keeps the score pretty close to start of with.
For actual competitive fairness, the player who has yet to drop a set should be allowed to drop a full set because his opponent was allowed to drop a full set. If the WB finalist loses, he only lost 1 extra game, while if the LB finalist loses, he lost two full sets.
I prefer maintaining competitive fairness.
|
Group Stage or extended group stage into single eliminations. The biggest sporting competition in the world does this, there is nothing wrong with it.
NASL Finals and TSL Finals overshadowed every other competitions simply because they had a good BO7, every other way is terrible and ruins the whole experience.
|
On August 16 2011 00:05 Chill wrote:
The people voting "Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game" are bending the rules of double elim to try to create excitement at the cost of fairness. I can't back that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I prefer single elimination tournaments past Ro16 anyways.
How is that? I think it is too great of an advantage for the guy from the winners bracket if its 2 Bo3's. There needs to be some sort of advantage for the winners bracket player, but it needs to be small, because going through the losers bracket playing more games to get to the finals is a punishment in of itself.
As a nice side effect, it most likely creates longer finals.
The possibility of big finals ending with 2 really short games is just really uncool. I think 2 Bo5's would be better, though this could end up being too long overall.
|
It'd be more fun to watch, but it just isn't fair for the top player from the winners bracket. Everyone else needed to lose twice, but since you played so well and got to the grand final without losing, you're now going to be eliminated if you lose just one round?
|
On August 16 2011 00:05 Chill wrote:
The people voting "Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game" are bending the rules of double elim to try to create excitement at the cost of fairness. I can't back that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I prefer single elimination tournaments past Ro16 anyways.
I agree on all points. It doesn't adequately reward the winner bracket winner, since he's only up a game as opposed to the loser bracket winner being allowed to lose a full match. Sure, it's possible to argue that the winner's reward is not going to losers, but that's blatantly unfair. Just because they never lost, they have to have less of a safety net? That's absurd, and borderline punishing the winner for not taking advantage of his first elimination earlier.
At the same time, watching a 2x Bo5 finals is way too long, and too demanding of the player coming from losers, yet having 2x Bo3 is boring for spectators if the winner bracket winner wins 2 sets. Having a double into single is much more fair and better for spectators.
|
I think for the finals (note: ONLY THE FINALS), the extended series rule if they've met before or two BoX's would be best.
|
Calgary25998 Posts
On August 16 2011 00:11 Lowell wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 00:05 Chill wrote:
The people voting "Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game" are bending the rules of double elim to try to create excitement at the cost of fairness. I can't back that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I prefer single elimination tournaments past Ro16 anyways. How is that?
A double elimination bracket means you have to lose two "series" (however that is defined in each game) to be eliminated. Giving the winner a one game advantage isn't the same as losing a series. You're actually penalizing him relative to literally every other player for never losing.
|
On August 15 2011 23:06 hysterial wrote:
I would say the up 1-0 in a Bo7 would be the best compromise between fairness and viewer excitement.
Agree with this dude. The huge advantage the upper bracket guy has in some of these finals makes me feel that the grand finals win is not as legitimate.
But of course Chill is right, it is bending the double elim rule. I still think it is justified though. The UB guy is still advantaged from less fatigue, and he does still get a head start in the grand finals.
|
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.
|
On August 15 2011 23:27 dani` wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote:
I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already. What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket? This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place).
Yes I know exactly how double elimination works. What I am suggesting is that the winner's bracket finalist already has an advantage due to not having to go through the grind of the lower bracket. Take the IPL for example. + Show Spoiler +White-ra made it to the grand finals having only to play 5 BoX sets, while Nerchio had to play 8 BoX
|
well i see it this case
you win winner bracket final 3-0 vs a guy then overall final you lose 2-3 when you was 1-0 so you had 1-3
so vs the player you have a 3-0 and 1-3 statistic but you lost the tournament
i like that its 2 bo5 etc cause its the most fair system
|
Calgary25998 Posts
On August 16 2011 00:22 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 23:27 dani` wrote:On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote:
I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already. What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket? This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place). Yes I know exactly how double elimination works. What I am suggesting is that the winner's bracket finalist already has an advantage due to not having to go through the grind of the lower bracket. Take the IPL for example. + Show Spoiler +White-ra made it to the grand finals having only to play 5 BoX sets, while Nerchio had to play 8 BoX . Think of it as a sort of roundabout way of giving players byes into the next round.
How about loser bracket finals then? If one player came from the winners' finals, and one person grinded through the loser bracket, shouldn't the latter get an advantage by your definition?
I can't back these grey rules. If you make a format it should be fair. You can't start at what's most exciting and then go backwards trying to justify it.
|
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. And the player in the grand finals who lost the one series will have a small disadvantage.
Besides, calling this "punishment" is kind of ridiculous from the mathematical point of view. Just because he hasn't lost yet doesn't make it more likely that he loses. No matter how many games have been lost or won beforehand, both players will always be on equal footing if they face each other once again. All the sets lost beforehand will not change the probabilities of the outcome of the current match.
|
I think the grand final should be a straight BO-7. Well I see many people saying they should do either A or B and trying to find a middle grand that gives the player from the winner bracket some sort of edge worthy of have his/her position, I think the advantage is already "built-in" to the system.
Look at N/A Battle.Net Invite.
SPOILERS WITHIN TAG.
+ Show Spoiler +Sheth lost to Select and was dropped to the losers bracket. At that time he had to face Huk in the losers bracket right away. Upon winning against Huk (Amazing Games) he then rejoined the top rank in order to compete in the final. The finals in which they played immediately after. The advantage to the player in the winners bracket is that he gets to rest, get something to drink, analyze the players in the loser bracket, work off the adrenaline, talk to teammates, etc.
To me that is enough of an advantage for me to be happy with the tournament structure. Pending the matches are all played one after another, without delays.
Sorry wrong tournament lol. Thanks for the correction. Watch so many of these its hard to keep them all separate. Meant Battle.Net tournament not IPL.
|
If I designed a tournament, it would be some sort of multiple elimination or group system until one round before the prizes start, so that every player faces elimination when they're playing for prizes. (A seed should be sufficient reward for coming out first in a group/never dropping a set in double-elim.)
On August 16 2011 00:25 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 00:22 red4ce wrote:On August 15 2011 23:27 dani` wrote:On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote:
I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already. What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket? This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place). Yes I know exactly how double elimination works. What I am suggesting is that the winner's bracket finalist already has an advantage due to not having to go through the grind of the lower bracket. Take the IPL for example. + Show Spoiler +White-ra made it to the grand finals having only to play 5 BoX sets, while Nerchio had to play 8 BoX . Think of it as a sort of roundabout way of giving players byes into the next round. I can't back these grey rules. If you make a format it should be fair. You can't start at what's most exciting and then go backwards trying to justify it.
Mirror matchups on symmetrical, two-spawn maps are the only thing that's fully fair, but we don't make tournaments out of those because it's not as exciting.
|
On August 16 2011 00:29 DemiAlbedo wrote:I think the grand final should be a straight BO-7. Well I see many people saying they should do either A or B and trying to find a middle grand that gives the player from the winner bracket some sort of edge worthy of have his/her position, I think the advantage is already "built-in" to the system. Look at IPL2. SPOILERS WITHIN TAG. + Show Spoiler +Sheth lost to Select and was dropped to the losers bracket. At that time he had to face Huk in the losers bracket right away. Upon winning against Huk (Amazing Games) he then rejoined the top rank in order to compete in the final. The finals in which they played immediately after. The advantage to the player in the winners bracket is that he gets to rest, get something to drink, analyze the players in the loser bracket, work off the adrenaline, talk to teammates, etc. To me that is enough of an advantage for me to be happy with the tournament structure. Pending the matches are all played one after another, without delays.
Wait, wasn't that NA BNet invite?
Otherwise, can't explain the fact that 3 NA players compete for medals. ^^"
|
On August 16 2011 00:25 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 00:22 red4ce wrote:On August 15 2011 23:27 dani` wrote:On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote:
I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already. What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket? This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place). Yes I know exactly how double elimination works. What I am suggesting is that the winner's bracket finalist already has an advantage due to not having to go through the grind of the lower bracket. Take the IPL for example. + Show Spoiler +White-ra made it to the grand finals having only to play 5 BoX sets, while Nerchio had to play 8 BoX . Think of it as a sort of roundabout way of giving players byes into the next round. How about loser bracket finals then? If one player came from the winners' finals, and one person grinded through the loser bracket, shouldn't the latter get an advantage by your definition? I can't back these grey rules. If you make a format it should be fair. You can't start at what's most exciting and then go backwards trying to justify it.
Um, no. My post wasn't about giving anyone advantages or disadvantages. It's about how playing fewer games is already enough of an advantage unto itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
