|
On August 16 2011 03:24 divito wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
Also, as a previous poster said, it's nearly impossible to quantify how many more games you actually have to play. In MLG, where open bracket players and pool players are put in the loser's bracket as well, there are a lot more games, but at the NA Blizzard invitational you only had to play 1 extra game.
|
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
So the Select v. Sheth finals at the NA BNet invitational were anticlimactic? White-ra v. Nerchio in the IPL was anticlimactic? Honestly, the 2xBoX format only produces bad finals when there's a gap in player skill, which is not something a single BoX fixes. Also, a "straight-up BoX" gives the winners finalist a disadvantage, because he only gets to lose one match before elimination, whereas the losers finalist gets to lose two.
I don't understand this attitude of "everyone has to lose two series to get eliminated, except for the winners bracket champion who only gets to lose one series." Adding some strange extended series rule doesn't fix that.
|
all playoff formats should be single elimination formats just like in really sports. all series should be single elimination bo3 up until the semi finals where it becomes a bo5, then bo7 in the finals, where the higher seeded player choosing the first maps in the map pool. Vetoing maps is prohibited and you cannot recycle a map in a series. In the bo3, the higher seeded player chooses the maps for gm1 and 3, in the bo5 gm 1,2 and 5, and the bo7 gm 1,2,5,7.
|
Lopsided finals make the finals boring and anti-climactic, then at the same time, there is no fair way to handle the losers bracket. The losers bracket is the problem and I enjoy tournaments that use them quite a bit less.
|
Using MLG as an example, I personally think the Winner's Bracket Finals, Loser's Bracket Finals, and Finals themselves should just be bumped up by two games and become Bo5, or Bo9 if there was an extended series addition to it.
|
People are actually voting to (partially) dismiss the fact that the guy from the winner's bracket has worked hard and performed better in order to secure the advantage in the finals? Seriously?
Ideally, as Chill said earlier, you'd want to turn it into a single elimination bracket somewhere around the Ro8 or Ro16 or so, to maximize viewer entertainment while not throwing away the integrity of the bracket.
Barring that, there is and should be a double elim finals in a double elim tournament. I feel like what some people are suggesting would be analogous to giving Inca a free game or two in the GSL finals after he was down 3-0 against Nestea just to make it closer, and thereby hopefully more entertaining for the viewers.
|
It would be absurd if the player who performs best doesn't get a second chance when everybody else did.
|
On August 16 2011 03:41 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
all playoff formats should be single elimination formats just like in really sports. all series should be single elimination bo3 up until the semi finals where it becomes a bo5, then bo7 in the finals, where the higher seeded player choosing the first maps in the map pool. Vetoing maps is prohibited and you cannot recycle a map in a series. In the bo3, the higher seeded player chooses the maps for gm1 and 3, in the bo5 gm 1,2 and 5, and the bo7 gm 1,2,5,7.
the only reason those sports don't use double elimination is because there isn't enough time, not because it's not a good system.
|
I would actually prefer single elimination. It's a lot more suspenseful in my opinion. Also, I don't mind Bo3s for everything besides the finals. However, my preferred arrangement would be Bo3s, then Bo5s in the semis, then a Bo7 in the finals. That way, you get more games of the top players and less of the average ones.
It really emphasizes the whole "You only got one shot" feeling. Make or break.
|
On August 16 2011 03:52 akalarry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 03:41 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
all playoff formats should be single elimination formats just like in really sports. all series should be single elimination bo3 up until the semi finals where it becomes a bo5, then bo7 in the finals, where the higher seeded player choosing the first maps in the map pool. Vetoing maps is prohibited and you cannot recycle a map in a series. In the bo3, the higher seeded player chooses the maps for gm1 and 3, in the bo5 gm 1,2 and 5, and the bo7 gm 1,2,5,7. the only reason those sports don't use double elimination is because there isn't enough time, not because it's not a good system.
Yeah. Realistically double elimination is a very good system - but it does admittedly cause the grand finals to be slightly less climactic. Double elimination is more about the entire tournament as a unit, whereas single elimination could be broken down step by step without losing much.
I guess what I'm trying to say is jumping straight into watching the finals (without watching much or any of the rest of the tournament) works just fine for single elimination, but doing so in double elimination would be like starting to watch a single elimination finals when the series is already 2-0 or something. I would be saying "Oh hey, yeah, you kind of missed some of it already".
|
The point of this thread is absolutely retarded. Double elimination is good and absolutely fine. Why would somebody that has not lost be penalized? just stop for a moment and let that sink in your head.
If you want to hate on or critique something, then do it based on brackets/seedings or the volatility of sc2 game-play.
|
On August 16 2011 03:34 Theovide wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
I'm saying I acknowledge the fact that double elimination implies that everyone should be able to lose two series before getting eliminated. BUT, imo, there is some leeway there that could help create a more epic final for the spectators, while still giving the winners bracket player a good advantage.
|
no advantage or 1 game advantage isn't fair to the undefeated player at all. i wouldn't want to play if the rules were like this.
|
I think winners and loser brackets shouldn't be seperate for a double elimination tournament. I would like to see some kind of system that randomly matched players up but forced unique opponents as much as possible until we have 2 people left. If you still have not dropped a set by that point you deserve the advantage of being able to lose a set and still compete.
Would make for an intresting finals if somehow both players haven't dropped a set!
|
i love loser brackets. sure if one steamrolls through the finals are short. But well they would be anyway, so not really a loss if the winner bracket person wins. Also the overall tournament is way cooler and more matches in general.
If you are only interested in finals though this is of course nothing for you. But if you actually cheer for a player or 2 thats perfect.
|
This is just another legitimacy of the tournament vs. what spectators want thread. While not quite as bad as the retards who think online tourneys should be livestreamed, the legitimacy of the tournament should always come first. Another example for "lan" tournaments is having the players play out in front in the stage without soundproof booths. While I can understand that spectators want to see the people who are playing, it is unacceptable that the players are ever able to hear the commentators. If you cannot provide adequate soundproofing, then players should be somewhere they can't hear.
|
On August 16 2011 03:52 akalarry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 03:41 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
all playoff formats should be single elimination formats just like in really sports. all series should be single elimination bo3 up until the semi finals where it becomes a bo5, then bo7 in the finals, where the higher seeded player choosing the first maps in the map pool. Vetoing maps is prohibited and you cannot recycle a map in a series. In the bo3, the higher seeded player chooses the maps for gm1 and 3, in the bo5 gm 1,2 and 5, and the bo7 gm 1,2,5,7. the only reason those sports don't use double elimination is because there isn't enough time, not because it's not a good system.
I dont mean to be rude but what the heck are you talking about? Time constraints are not the reason sports use a single elimination format. Most people I've persuaded to watch cs/quake/sc events with me who havnt already find the double elmination bracket a completely alien concept. No one in the general public is looking at Wimbledon or the FIFA World Cup going "Shit guys if only we had more fucking time! We're stuck with this damn and blasted single elimination rubbish! I want England to have to beat Brazil in the final twice, or at the very least from a goal down! Oh why must we put up with this wretched wretched single elimination format! Boo Hoo, if only there were more hours in the day then our need for double elmination could be met!"
Have I made my point yet?
Edit for clarity (as if it were needed) : No double elimination final will provide a truly acceptable final in which two competitors battle from a position of equal oppurtinity and power. That is not to say they CANT be exciting, but the chance of an underdog victory or a truly close game is offset by the inherent advantage held by the winner of the winners bracket
|
On August 16 2011 04:03 Ballack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 03:34 Theovide 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.
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. I'm saying I acknowledge the fact that double elimination implies that everyone should be able to lose two series before getting eliminated. BUT, imo, there is some leeway there that could help create a more epic final for the spectators, while still giving the winners bracket player a good advantage.
Sorry, but you'd be artificially changing the rules at the last moment just for a shot at "ooooooh flashier finals oooooo..." It's childish ("just because you haven't lost a set means we have to set you back!"), and it ruins the integrity of the tournament itself. Also, how the hell does it make it better for the spectators? It's up to the PLAYERS themselves to put up a good show. None of this artificial BS nonsense to cheapen the tournament experience.
MLG does something like this only they do it in the opposite spectrum and DOUBLY PUNISH the "loser's bracket" player thanks to the extended series rule. Think about why just about everyone calls this ruleset utter bull!@#$.
Let me give you an example that should clear your mind up: A 3-set tennis match.
Player A takes set 1 over player B 6-4. We're now in the second set, both at 0-0. Player B now has to win a total of 12 games without dropping 6 of them in a single set at any time if he wants to win the whole match. But all of a sudden, the refs decide to change the format to keep the score from set 1 and make the winner of the match first to 12, meaning that player B just has to make up the difference and just take 8 more in total to win. No! Nuh-uh! Everyone knows the original ruleset from the very beginning of tennis, and changing it to this way seriously cheapens the match, and I would guarantee you it would damage the spectator value too.
|
On August 16 2011 06:15 BigLighthouse wrote:
Edit for clarity (as if it were needed) : No double elimination final will provide a truly acceptable final in which two competitors battle from a position of equal oppurtinity and power. That is not to say they CANT be exciting, but the chance of an underdog victory or a truly close game is offset by the inherent advantage held by the winner of the winners bracket
Fine, then we should all make SC2 tournaments single elimination and get GSL-quality finals! I'm sure we all loved watching the underdog InCa give Nestea a run for his money, right?
|
It's only fair to give the winners' bracket player the "extra life" that the loser's bracket winner has.
As for the hype, upsets may not happen all the time, but they can and do, and it's really impressive when they do. I've seen Evo tourney finals (for side-tourneys as well as the main ones) go to the last round of the second match quite a few times. Bringing it back from the big disadvantage is a big part of the hype.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
