| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
BigLighthouse
United Kingdom424 Posts
On August 16 2011 06:22 Lunchador wrote: 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? Do you really think that putting inca at a 1 BO7 defecit would have made it any closer? | ||
|
RusHXceL
United States1004 Posts
| ||
|
Lunchador
United States776 Posts
On August 16 2011 06:24 BigLighthouse wrote: Do you really think that putting inca at a 1 BO7 defecit would have made it any closer? For god's sakes, man. I am NOT advocating the Bo7 method with a 1 game advantage to winner's. Can you read sarcasm? | ||
|
aphorism
United States226 Posts
On August 16 2011 06:24 BigLighthouse wrote: Do you really think that putting inca at a 1 BO7 defecit would have made it any closer? No, but it would be possible to see someone like NaDa, sC, Losira, or TOP make it through the lower bracket and challenge him for the finals instead of having a completely lackluster finals. | ||
|
BigLighthouse
United Kingdom424 Posts
On August 16 2011 06:28 Lunchador wrote: For god's sakes, man. I am NOT advocating the Bo7 method with a 1 game advantage to winner's. Can you read sarcasm? I assumed the sarcasm was discrediting single elimination formats in favour of double elimination. Can you blame me for reaching my conclusion? | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
| ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
The player from the winners bracket already has the advantage that he had to play less games and he had more time to prepare for the finals. While the loser had to play a very exhausting Loser Bracket Final. | ||
|
ulaw
United States26 Posts
| ||
|
Lunchador
United States776 Posts
On August 16 2011 06:41 Koshi wrote: Current system is fair. But I would also prefer a Bo7 with 1up for the player out of the winners bracket. The player from the winners bracket already has the advantage that he had to play less games and he had more time to prepare for the finals. While the loser had to play a very exhausting Loser Bracket Final. I would consider playing less games just as much as a disadvantage as it is an advantage. You'll get cold if you stop playing. | ||
|
leakingpear
United Kingdom302 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." That's a ridiculous way to look at it, they both end up having to win the same amount of series, bar having to reset the bracket in the final. It's not about incentive to win, it's about fair tournament structure, it's not like there's loads of players planning to lose. If what format was in place? Standard double elimination? The kind of double elimination tournament format used by thousands of different individual and team sports and games? I have no idea where you get this bollocks about tournament structures being there to provide incentive to do anything, they're there to ensure that the tournament is fair and ideally are there to give the best players the best chance. What these non-standard structures do is make it so it's a completely arbitrary group that gets the best chance, either based on luck, decreasingly irrelevant previous results or some other nonsense like geographic location. I honestly have no idea where people got the idea that tournament structure was something that needed messing about with. Both options (standard single or double elim) have complete flexibility without making it dumb as crap. Seeding systems allow recognised good players to not have to face each other until later in the tournament while not making it prohibitively hard for unseeded players to do well based on their performance. This stuff is remarkably uncomplicated yet everyone seems to want to make it so, the worst offenders being MLG. | ||
|
tehV
28 Posts
Everyone seems to hate the extended series rule, and the reason given is its 'unfair', as both players are now at the same part of the bracket who cares what happened before. But then why make this obviously unfair rule for the finals? This would actually harm spectator enjoyment for me at least, if the losers bracket person ended up winning, it wouldn't be considered legit. --What is wrong with you people? -- | ||
|
Ballack
Norway821 Posts
On August 16 2011 06:19 Lunchador wrote: 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. First of all, the "oooooh flashier finall ooooo" should be a goal for any tournament. Who said they would be artificially changing the rules at the last moment? Second of all, the rule I suggested wouldn't really set the winners bracket player back by much. The player from the losers bracket would still have to win 4 out of 6 games to win. The only thing it changes is that you are guaranteed more games, instead of a two game sweep like we usually see. Third of all, while the players are responsible for putting up a good show, when pitting the best players of the tournament against each other for all the glory, I find a best of 7 more appropriate. If you find that change would ruin the intergrity of say MLG, then I don't know who the childish one here is. Note that I can understand people who want the principle of double elimination to be just that throughout the tourney, I just think another way is better. On August 16 2011 06:19 Lunchador wrote: 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. Edited away a part that didnt make sense. The only thing I'm advocating is more games, If Wimbledon implemented double elimination and put forth my suggestion, I do not believe Nadal would protest if he started the finals one set over Federer. It would not cause turmoil, it would not be a big deal. So while your example seems proper, it collapses in that tennis match of yours being played as one match. It obviously have to happen over two games to make sense. When winners meet in the winners finals, they are fighting for a spot in the finals, they are not fighting elimination. The bullshit about "suddenly the refs decide" is just that, bullshit. If MLG were gonna change the format they obviously would have waited until the next season before changing it. Am I saying I believe they will change it or that I demand them to change it? No, I'm just using a forum the way it should be used, by putting my thoughts out there. | ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
also, for those of you saying double elimination is anticlimactic, point me to a tournament where that was the case (can't reference sc2 since there are none), and tell me why single elimination would have made it more hype. in return, i'll show you more tournaments where there was double elimination, and where there was more hype. | ||
|
Ballack
Norway821 Posts
On August 16 2011 06:44 tehV wrote: Really? Nearly half of you want this made up 'up-one-game' rule? I'm actually shocked. Everyone seems to hate the extended series rule, and the reason given is its 'unfair', as both players are now at the same part of the bracket who cares what happened before. But then why make this obviously unfair rule for the finals? This would actually harm spectator enjoyment for me at least, if the losers bracket person ended up winning, it wouldn't be considered legit. --What is wrong with you people? -- As I said in the previous post, the player coming from the losers bracket would still have to win 4 out of 6 games in order to beat the guy from winners. If he does so, then I think most would agree he deserves the win. | ||
|
Hermasaurus
54 Posts
On August 16 2011 00:11 Lowell wrote: 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. How is what? He thoroughly explained his opinion. One which I don't entirely agree with but I fail to see your point.You suggest that making it 2 bo5 would level the playing field. How? Overall, it is the exact same concept. It wouldn't matter if it was 2 bo47 because it boils down to one player having to win 1 set while the other has to win 2. It would put the player from the losers bracket in a position to not just win both sets but do it over a much larger series, after playing from the pigtail. You seem to think because Starcraft 2 is a spectator sport that the spectators interest should be held in higher regard than the players. It doesn't matter if the finals don't mount up to the expectations of the crowd, it matters that the best player wins. To ensure the best player wins you use a format that doesn't allow losers to end up in the finals with an opportunity they don't deserve. If you want the best player at that given time to win, then you remove this multiple elimination non sense. Look at the MSL, OSL, or the GSL for example. You have repeat winners in all of them. Why? Because removing double elimination, eliminates opportunity for travesty. | ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
Get rid of the grand finals. The winner of the winners bracket is first place. This makes sense since he lost 0 series the whole tournament. You could make this a bo5/bo7. Then have the 2nd/3rd places be determined by the losers bracket final. If you do it that way no one who ever enters the losers bracket can get first, but they can get any other position. | ||
|
L3gendary
Canada1470 Posts
On August 16 2011 06:44 tehV wrote: Really? Nearly half of you want this made up 'up-one-game' rule? I'm actually shocked. Everyone seems to hate the extended series rule, and the reason given is its 'unfair', as both players are now at the same part of the bracket who cares what happened before. But then why make this obviously unfair rule for the finals? This would actually harm spectator enjoyment for me at least, if the losers bracket person ended up winning, it wouldn't be considered legit. --What is wrong with you people? -- Huh. Extended series also affects every other part of the tournament not just the finals. In the finals the players haven't really made it to "the same part of the bracket" since 1 is still technically in the winner's bracket and the other is in loser's. The 1 game rule for the finals makes perfect sense to me. Even the 2 bo3's makes more sense than extended series. | ||
|
Trumpet
United States1936 Posts
If you have a field of 64 players, but the 2 best players play each other in the first round, then the 2nd best player at the tournament who should get the 2nd place prize now gets 64th. Double elim is significantly better for the players, and tends to make for better matches as well. On August 16 2011 07:45 Mastermind wrote: This is what they should do. Get rid of the grand finals. The winner of the winners bracket is first place. This makes sense since he lost 0 series the whole tournament. You could make this a bo5/bo7. Then have the 2nd/3rd places be determined by the losers bracket final. If you do it that way no one who ever enters the losers bracket can get first, but they can get any other position. I've personally been to several tournaments where the player coming from the loser's bracket is able to adjust and win both sets of grand finals. As a side note, the format has no bearing on how hype the finals are, as best evidenced by the gsl. Not every finals will be GGPlay vs Iris, sometimes the best matches happen in the ro8 or ro4, it can't be helped. | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
On the other hand, it would be unfair NOT to give such an advantage to the upper bracket winner, since he is the only one not to have lost. Hence, I voted keep it how it is. Any other feel, I feel, is a slap in the face for the upper bracket winner. | ||
|
Mezmy
Belgium27 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Stellar Fest
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
FEL
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
herO vs Classic
Percival vs Rogue
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
