EPTDouble elimination finals as good? - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
K_Dilkington
Sweden449 Posts
| ||
|
MrSexington
United States1768 Posts
The person coming from the loser's bracket is getting his second chance but the uphill battle isn't over yet. And the person coming from the winner's bracket is one win away from the all-kill. (It's fine the way it is.) | ||
|
Hossinaut
United States453 Posts
Why? Well, personally, I don't find much entertainment in a BO>5 series when one player is just dominating his opponent (or her, but we haven't had many of those). It seems like a lot of finals are really good, but it feels like one player is gonna win the whole thing pretty well from the second game. The first, they're going back and forth and one player sort of wins, or its total domination, whichever the first game is, I oftentimes see the second game as the opposite, and either way, it feels easy for one of the players (who by now probably has 2 wins) is going to win. Just my $0.02. TLDR, the longer the BOX series, the less entertainment value there is, to me, and in my opinion. | ||
|
leakingpear
United Kingdom302 Posts
If they're anticlimactic (which I personally disagree with, when someone comes back and wins from the losers bracket it's a hell of a lot more hyper), then use a single elimination format with more games in each series, don't do a terrible bastardised system that arbitrarily decides the value of one win versus as another. Either system can allow the same amount of consistant results by the top players, systems like MLG's championship bracket, extended series and so on are absurd complications that have zero mathematical effect on the probability of the better players sticking around. If keeping mediocre personalities around is the issue then use an invitational system, I just don't get where anyone got the idea that tournament formats were an issue that needed jazzing up with shitty gimmicks. The sport/game in question is probably pretty bad if the only way to make it a viable spectator sport/game is to essentially rig the brackets in favour of a randomly selected few. | ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
in other video games that use double elimination, there have been a ton of tournaments where a person has been sent to losers, and clawed his way back into the grand finals, beating the person from winner's finals in 2 sets. nothing is more exciting and hype than that. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
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. Absolutely agree. | ||
|
sixfour
England11061 Posts
On August 16 2011 02:31 MrSexington wrote: Stop looking at the finals as a singular event. Look at the finals as the end to the entire event as a whole. The person coming from the loser's bracket is getting his second chance but the uphill battle isn't over yet. And the person coming from the winner's bracket is one win away from the all-kill. (It's fine the way it is.) basically this we need to look more at every single tournament format that is in use in sc2 being broken to some extent | ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
| ||
|
Al Bundy
7257 Posts
| ||
|
robin19999
Netherlands246 Posts
| ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
On August 16 2011 02:43 leakingpear wrote: Double elim tournaments should always be a best of whatever, with the losers bracket winner being able to reset the bracket and have another best of whatever, anything less is ridiculous as it devalues the wins of the winner bracket winner in comparison to the wins of the loser bracket winner It doesn't devalue anything actually. By winning the upper bracket, you don't have to go through the issue of playing more matches and potentially being defeated from the tournament. That is more than enough incentive to win. If that format was in place, I'd be interested to meet the person or team that would say, "I/we should lose so we can increase our potential to lose, just so I/we have to win one BoX in the grand finals, rather than win straight up." | ||
|
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
Absolutely disagree. Where do you draw the line of "advantage"? What happens if the winner's bracket matches were 2 hours long and the player was burned out? How can you possibly quantify that "having more breaks" equates to a Bo3 win. This is absolutely not fair at all on the player in the winner's bracket. Under your rules, deliberately losing in the Winner's finals may result in an advantage. Consider the scenario - Winner's Finals: MVP vs Marineking. Waiting in Loser's Finals: Combat Ex. Marineking feels he cannot beat MVP in a straight up game but has prepared 2 cheeses to snipe him. If he uses these cheese builds in the winner's finals, his plan will be revealed and in the rematch in the grand finals, he will be rolled over. However, if he saves it for the grand finals, he may be able to sneak in a win because he only has to win 1 Bo3 to be crowned champion, even if he is rolled over in winner's finals. Therefore, he has absolutely no reason to win in Winner's finals, assuming he is confident in thrashing Combat Ex, because wasting energy in a long TvT is not something he wants to do, considering he knows he won't win it anyway. It goes against all principles of sport to introduce unfair arbitrary rules to make things more hype. This isn't Mario Kart, this is a large sum of money people are playing for. The Winner of the winner's bracket is the only player that hasn't lost. The champion of the loser bracket is the champion of those who have lost once. The champion of the tournament is the person that has only lost once or not at all. | ||
|
Kelsin
United States253 Posts
| ||
|
Grebliv
Iceland800 Posts
The format essentially means you have two "lives", one in the upper bracket and one in the lower one. If you finish the winners bracket without losing (2 lives) the person who is still standing after the lower bracket has run it's course (1 life) gets a chance to "dethrone" the former. Some tourneys end up having the finals be a bit different as in 2 games out of a bo7 or 1 in a bo5. If you prefer more intense finals, and someone having an easier time at that point doesn't fit the bill, you pretty much have to go with a single elimination bracket. Removing the undefeated players advantage and or negating it partially essentially just gives that player the disadvantage (overall). A player putting someone into the losers bracket handily and then having him come back and narrowly lose out in a more "even ground" finals would be very controversial I'd imagine as it should be. All in all treating the finals of a double elim tournament as a different event would be pretty unfair. Instead the lb winner (and supporters of said player) should look at the bright side. If it were single elim he'd have no chance, instead of some (or even good if it was just bad luck), at coming out on top. | ||
|
ak1knight
United States313 Posts
On August 16 2011 03:01 divito wrote: It doesn't devalue anything actually. By winning the upper bracket, you don't have to go through the issue of playing more matches and potentially being defeated from the tournament. That is more than enough incentive to win. If that format was in place, I'd be interested to meet the person or team that would say, "I/we should lose so we can increase our potential to lose, just so I/we have to win one BoX in the grand finals, rather than win straight up." What are you talking about? You're saying there are players that would rather drop to loser's bracket so they have to win 2 BoX in the finals instead of 1? | ||
|
AdreN-
United States503 Posts
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 voted the BO7 up by one game because it's more exciting (like you said) because it was the best option in the poll for me. The winner's bracket player has to play less games to reach the finals and has a 1-0 head start. Still a fairly huge advantage. Personally, I think it should be up 1-0 in BO5 (not BO7). | ||
|
andytb
United Kingdom180 Posts
| ||
|
divito
Canada1213 Posts
On August 16 2011 03:11 ak1knight wrote: What are you talking about? You're saying there are players that would rather drop to loser's bracket so they have to win 2 BoX in the finals instead of 1? No. The argument that person was making is that the winner of the winner's bracket should be able to force another BoX if they should lose to the lower bracket winner; very much like some sports/other eSports tournaments have already used. For example, double-elimination CS tournament, lower bracket winner winning Bo3 in Grand Final would force another Bo3 in typical tournaments. I'm an advocate that going through the loser's bracket and diminishing your probability of winning the tournament by playing (depending on the size of the tournament, way) more matches is punishment enough and that a singular BoX Grand Final is sufficient. By his argument, if that type of system was in place, I countered saying that I'd like to see a player or team that would rather lose and work through the lower bracket, simply because they don't have to win twice in the Grand Final. I think it's silly because the upper winner still has an advantage and always will. | ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
On August 16 2011 03:22 andytb wrote: Dual-Bo3 produces anticlimactic finals. I'm not too bothered about if there is an advantage given, so long as a straight up duel is adopted source? have any experience to back that up? | ||
Theovide
Sweden914 Posts
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. You're not saying it isn't fair, but it's over the top? Isn't that the same thing? And it's not over the top at all, it's perfectly fair. Double elimination means that you have to lose 2 best of X to be out of the tournament, the one from the winners bracket haven't lost a best of X yet so he will have to lose two to be out. Now I'm not saying that your criticism of the format isn't valid, it's just that it's false to say that it not fair (as in that the advantage for the player from the winners bracket is over the top). A valid criticism is instead the fact that it can turn out not to be as entertaining because the winner bracket finalist might take a quick win. Either way I think that fairness in who wins is extremely important in a sport to keep it's validness, and thus I like the current double elimination system. (I for example think it would be very weird if in a tournament player A wins over player B in the winners bracket final with 3-0 and then in the real final player B beats player A with 3-0 and thus it's over, when they are really equal.) | ||
| ||
