|
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 didn't catch the finals (funnily pretty much the only broadcasted set I missed from that tourney), but if the Homestory Cup ran like that in the finals, then yes.
|
On August 16 2011 00:43 Cartel wrote:Show nested quote +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.
He doesn't? :o Surely only having to win one Bo3 compared to the two of the other is an advantage over the other?
|
if they play a bo7 or even a bo9, 1game up is imho not enough advantage for the guy from the upper bracket.
but i also think bo5 with 1 game up or bo7 with 2 games up would be better than two bo x
|
Double best of whatever has never really been the BW standard. It was 1 game up. There were exceptions, but that was the norm. I don't see a reason to change that. Of course double elim wasn't as much used in bw as it is now is sc2, but still.
|
On August 15 2011 23:36 grigorin wrote:I would make it like in beachvolleyball: Double Elimination until Ro 4 into single elimination (without any advantages) example: Link to .pdf
I like this alot. Make the Ro 4 Bo5, finals Bo7. I think this is the best solution. I agree that the current format is less exciting, especially with the prospect of a repeated series with one player having a big advantage for the finals.
|
Bo9... kuz I want more epic games No advantage... why should the the player from the WINNER's bracket need an advantage anyways? (I say the player that wins the winners bracket should just get a small money bonus for their winner's domination)
|
o_O
You're all haters of extended series in MLG but it's okay if it's an extended series with one game up instead of potentially 2.
Ah w/e double elim is fair you guys are too much
|
On August 16 2011 01:07 akalarry wrote:Show nested quote +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. Tbh the main point is that fair depends quite a lot of your POV. Heck the WB player can still have lost more games than the LB player.
Seeing as the rules apply the same to every player, no matter who wins the finals of the WB, my POV= it's pretty fair.
On August 16 2011 01:28 how2TL wrote: o_O
You're all haters of extended series in MLG but it's okay if it's an extended series with one game up instead of potentially 2.
Ah w/e double elim is fair you guys are too much Extended series is imo wrong because both players are at LB, they have both lost a series and don't deserve any advantage over one another. The finals, the WB deserves an advantage, but not such a large one as 1 straight BoX.
On August 16 2011 01:26 ShatterZer0 wrote:Bo9... kuz I want more epic games No advantage... why should the the player from the WINNER's bracket need an advantage anyways? (I say the player that wins the winners bracket should just get a small money bonus for their winner's domination) He deserves an advantage, because else WB finals could become 'fixed', where you are pretty certain you will win the LB finals, so you'd rather not show your hand until the grand finals.
|
It's fair. There are ways to make it into a single series and still keep it pretty fair, but it wouldn't change the possibility of the finals ending in a small amount of games.
|
On August 16 2011 00:44 KevinIX wrote: i like the idea to make it double elim until the Semifinals where it becomes a simple single elimination best of 5/7
I absolutely agree with this and think it's a fantastic idea.
Double elimination could be said to be had to make it harder for the top players to be cheesed out. However if at the Top 4-8 it becomes single elimanation - well upper bracker or lower bracket, everything is evened up, and it makes for a very exciting conclusion to the tournament.
I have been giving it a lot of thought, and seriously, if you think this format is unfair, give it some thought first, and then try replying telling me how.
|
On August 16 2011 01:29 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 01:07 akalarry wrote: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. Tbh the main point is that fair depends quite a lot of your POV. Heck the WB player can still have lost more games than the LB player. Seeing as the rules apply the same to every player, no matter who wins the finals of the WB, my POV= it's pretty fair. Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 01:28 how2TL wrote: o_O
You're all haters of extended series in MLG but it's okay if it's an extended series with one game up instead of potentially 2.
Ah w/e double elim is fair you guys are too much Extended series is imo wrong because both players are at LB, they have both lost a series and don't deserve any advantage over one another. The finals, the WB deserves an advantage, but not such a large one as 1 straight BoX.Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 01:26 ShatterZer0 wrote:Bo9... kuz I want more epic games No advantage... why should the the player from the WINNER's bracket need an advantage anyways? (I say the player that wins the winners bracket should just get a small money bonus for their winner's domination) He deserves an advantage, because else WB finals could become 'fixed', where you are pretty certain you will win the LB finals, so you'd rather not show your hand until the grand finals.
This is not an advantage that only the WB gets. It's equal to everyone else, but everyone else already used that advantage up. So i don't see how it's not fair.
|
i dont like the format becouse it tends to end in only 2 games.. kinda anti-climatic
|
It's always been like this and i'm fine with the system, giving a hudge advantage for the player in the WB is fair, we've seen often times the player from the LB winning 2BO3 in a row and it's super exciting when it happens.
|
On August 16 2011 01:35 akalarry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 01:29 Zarahtra wrote:On August 16 2011 01:07 akalarry wrote: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. Tbh the main point is that fair depends quite a lot of your POV. Heck the WB player can still have lost more games than the LB player. Seeing as the rules apply the same to every player, no matter who wins the finals of the WB, my POV= it's pretty fair. On August 16 2011 01:28 how2TL wrote: o_O
You're all haters of extended series in MLG but it's okay if it's an extended series with one game up instead of potentially 2.
Ah w/e double elim is fair you guys are too much Extended series is imo wrong because both players are at LB, they have both lost a series and don't deserve any advantage over one another. The finals, the WB deserves an advantage, but not such a large one as 1 straight BoX.On August 16 2011 01:26 ShatterZer0 wrote:Bo9... kuz I want more epic games No advantage... why should the the player from the WINNER's bracket need an advantage anyways? (I say the player that wins the winners bracket should just get a small money bonus for their winner's domination) He deserves an advantage, because else WB finals could become 'fixed', where you are pretty certain you will win the LB finals, so you'd rather not show your hand until the grand finals. This is not an advantage that only the WB gets. It's equal to everyone else, but everyone else already used that advantage up. So i don't see how it's not fair.
And because he didn't use it up, he gets awarded 1 win. Call it that the WB is fighting for that 1 win in the finals and playing fewer games if you will.
|
A tournament winner is the last man standing. To knock a player out of a double elimination tournament they must be defeated in two series. How is this so fucking difficult for people to grasp? It's not a novel form for organizing tournaments. The finals do suck relative to single elimination, but in return for one less exciting series you get TWICE as many series total and a format that is more conducive to the winner being the "better" player.
|
I don't really like the idea of keeping a format the same up until the final match in the tournament. Doesn't seem right to me. I also don't like gimmicks such as extended series to fix perceived "unfairnesses". I like the idea of double elimination as a whole though, but I have to concede that the finals of double elim tournaments are generally unsatisfying.
I think something like double elim bracket to 16 players, which are then placed in a single elim bracket, would be better. People from the winners bracket get byes in the new single elim bracket. This is sort of like what MLG does with a championship bracket but less bullshit.
Overall though I think pool play into a single elim bracket is better.
|
On August 15 2011 23:06 MisterTea wrote: the guy in the winners bracket has already beaten the previous guy 2-1 or 2-0 and deservers the upper hand, just like the guy in the losers bracket got an extra life and fought all the way to the finals , in the end the better player will win and there's nothing wrong with double elim
At Anaheim, MMA never lost a game in the brackets prior to the grand final, he lost one pool game (not to MVP) which sent him into the 'Championship' bracket in the second place slot. MVP could have lost a game to anyone other than Ganzi and would have still had a two match advantage over MMA by virtue of his pool.
|
On August 16 2011 01:14 ProxyKnoxy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 00:43 Cartel wrote: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. He doesn't? :o Surely only having to win one Bo3 compared to the two of the other is an advantage over the other?
You're right in it's an advantage.
You're absolutely incorrect in that it's unfair.
|
Poll results are disgusting. The people who voted winner's bracket has only a one game advantage are penalizing the winner to make an imaginary "better" finals. It's like throwing a greater tax % on the really rich people (why? They're so rich they have the advantage over everyone else durrrr). That's not how double elimination works, people! Your life in a tournament is measured by whole BoX series you have won or lost. You don't change the rules right at the last minute for the finals.
If you want grand finals to be a single Bo7 or 9 with both players starting at 0, guess what? That's what's called a single elimination tournament. But you should realize that there's a far greater chance of getting one-sided finals that way (see GSL). I will vomit if you praise the NASL final tournament format because it's the exact same thing as GSL, only that NASL got extremely lucky that two good players really did make it to the grand finals.
|
You play 2xBo(5,7,9,w/e) with the player from the upper bracket only needing to win 1 of the 2. It is the only truly fair way in line with normal double elimination rule sets. Yeah, its anticlimactic. Thats the reason double elimination shouldnt be used.
|
|
|
|