|
On August 16 2011 00:31 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 00:25 Chill wrote: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.
Sorry, we are talking about SC not rock, papper, scissors.
|
its fine the way it is, look at the BNET NA invitational its very exciting when a player manages to get the game to the 2nd BO3.
Chances are that if one of the players is outclassed it doesn´t really matter because we will get boring finals.
|
I think that it's fine. In a double elimination tournament it's only fair that the person who hasn't lost all tournament benefit from that rule.
That said, I absolutely hate the MLG "extended series" system. That is something that really needs to go.
|
Fair or unfair always depends on the point of view, and there is nothing as "absolutely fair". Even the 2BoX rules is unfair because the player with the worse win-to-loss ratio through the course of the tournament overall (including finals) can win the whole thing.
|
I have to say im surprised at the polls suggesting most pple think its not fine the way it is.
In double elimination tournaments, where players get 2 chances at winning the trophy, it is absolutely the only FAIR way to have it so that the final match between the two players at the end should have 1-2 possible sets.
If you dont agree with this system, i highly suggest you rethink it completely and thoroughly, as to the reason for it to be that way. If you still do not understand it, what that means is that you think its fair that the player who has lost a series to someone deserves an unfair advantage over the guy who is at the winners bracket and hasn't lost a single set. That is what is unfair.
edit- I agree with Cyrix about the MLG system, that absolutely has to change. It is 100% not a fair system.
|
If you use double elimination - use double elimination. It's unfair if everyone is allowed to lose once, except the one guy who won the winnerbracket final.
If you want an exciting final - then go single elimination like the NASL. But then dont cry, when people like Ret fall in the first round (ok you may cry about seeding^^). You cant say "everyone should have a second chance" and then say "Oh but the one guy there should only have one chance!"
|
do what every other video game tournaments does.
loser has to win 2 best of 5s (best of x) winner just has to win 1 best of 5
|
I don't agree at all that the winner of the upper bracket should get an advantage. I don't know why but I just plain disagree with it.
ALL finals should be a BO7 in my opinion, although that would probably never happen, the MLG finals were a let down as it was so short
|
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.
On August 16 2011 00:29 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
I always thought that Bo5/7 with a 1-0 lead for the person coming from the Winners bracket is the way to go. It is a very good compromise between fairness and viewer-friendliness. But I believe for the finals (and only for the finals) two BoX or even an extended series would be fine.
|
On August 16 2011 00:40 ProxyKnoxy wrote: I don't agree at all that the winner of the upper bracket should get an advantage. I don't know why but I just plain disagree with it.
ALL finals should be a BO7 in my opinion, although that would probably never happen, the MLG finals were a let down as it was so short
I can understand why you would believe the system is unfair, but thats where there may be a misunderstanding.
The upper bracket player does not have an advantage.
|
i like the idea to make it double elim until the Semifinals where it becomes a simple single elimination best of 5/7
|
On August 15 2011 23:49 Sveet wrote: Its not about "having the upper hand" its about set losses in bracket. The person in grand finals from winners bracket has not lost to anyone yet, while the person in losers bracket has. If a bracket is double elimination, a person still in the winners bracket has to lose twice to be knocked out of the tournament and that holds true even in grand finals. The person coming from the losers bracket has already lost 1 set which means he can't lose another one or he will be eliminated.
this. double elimination
it's the most logical and is applied in every other video game tournament that uses double elimination. how does this guy's post not make absolute sense? it will also create hype finals anyways, because the advantage isn't impossible since the bo x are separate.
having a person up 1 game out of a best of 7 makes no logical sense. it is arbitrary (1 out of 7?)
1 set = bo 3 (for semi-finals in losers/winners onwards should be bo5)
|
How is a bo7/9 more exciting than a bo3/5? I don't see it... it's more games, sure, but the sc2 scene doesn't lack för games to watch. Onesided finals in a bo7/9 suck way more than onesided finals in a bo3/5
I like the true double-elim format best. That is if you come from the losers bracket you need to win two series, from the winners just one. It's fair and has the potential to be really exciting.
The OP mixes up extended series and double-elim, and they are two different things.
|
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.
In double elimination tournaments, where players get 2 chances at winning the trophy, it is absolutely the only FAIR way to have it so that the final match between the two players at the end should have 1-2 possible sets.
I think that nearly all people that vote for "up one game" would also say that it is "fine the way it is", just that they prefer a slightly different modell, as long as the player from the Winners Bracket gets some kind of advantage. We can still disagree if the adjustment is fair (since it is quite arbitrary), but right now 80% of the votes want to give an advantage to this player, which I believe is a pretty reasonable number.
|
On August 16 2011 00:48 GGruss wrote: How is a bo7/9 more exciting than a bo3/5? I don't see it... it's more games, sure, but the sc2 scene doesn't lack för games to watch. Onesided finals in a bo7/9 suck way more than onesided finals in a bo3/5
I like the true double-elim format best. That is if you come from the losers bracket you need to win two series, from the winners just one. It's fair and has the potential to be really exciting.
The OP mixes up extended series and double-elim, and they are two different things.
people who still don't understand what real double elimination is, check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_elimination
no point in using double elimination if you don't use this format.
|
I've always been a fan of: - series starts out best of 3 or 5 or whatever the format is (preferably 5) - winner's bracket player only needs to win that bo3/5 - if the loser's bracket player wins the series, it becomes a bo5/7 with the scores carrying over.
Sort of an extended series, but not really. It gives the winner's bracket player a pretty significant advantage at first, but he can lose it pretty quickly if he makes mistakes.
Blizzard invitational: + Show Spoiler +In this system, select and sheth would have gone to a game 7. Would have been amazing imo.
|
Personally I feel it's a bit silly to justify the way it's done from it being named double elimination. I'd personally want a smaller advantage that the WB gets, since these 2 game finals are such a killer. The WB deserves an advantage, but I don't really agree to the reasoning that because it's called double elimination, it must be that he's up 1 BoX.
Sure if the WB looses, he'd just loose 1 BoX, but he still lost one that he started with an advantage.
|
Should be just an elimination and no losers bracket to make it fair and square and non of this bullshit imo. :p
|
On August 16 2011 01:02 Zarahtra wrote: Personally I feel it's a bit silly to justify the way it's done from it being named double elimination. I'd personally want a smaller advantage that the WB gets, since these 2 game finals are such a killer. The WB deserves an advantage, but I don't really agree to the reasoning that because it's called double elimination, it must be that he's up 1 BoX.
Sure if the WB looses, he'd just loose 1 BoX, but he still lost one that he started with an advantage.
it's not an advantage that the winner gets, it's even footing... everyone else has lost a BoX, so he needs to lose TWO BoX to lose the grand finals.
a smaller advantage for the WB? that's not fair for him because everyone else used the exact same advantage.
|
|
|
|