|
On August 16 2011 07:55 Kurr wrote:
I love Double elimination tournaments, except the finals. It definitely makes them less interesting.
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.
really, what are some tournaments (whichever video game you watched) that you've seen recently that produced less interesting finals?
not this mlg double elimination bullshit, but a real double elimination?
|
Not a big fan of double elimination in the finals, makes for weird games and less excitement when the favored player wins the first game..
|
everyone who says double elimination is more boring, let's take a look at gsl.
players that placed second in the gsl such as rain, inca, losira (<3) made the gsl finals less interesting, and this is because of single elimination. if it was double elimination, there would have been a higher chance of someone like mc, nada, bomber, nestea(when he got eliminated by rain) to play in the grand finals. how is that not MORE exciting?
let's say during the gsl with nestea vs inca, bomber worked his way to grand finals from losers bracket. yes he'd have to win 2 best of 5s, but at least we get to see ONE best of 5 MINIMUM. if bomber beats nestea in the first bo5, then that's more hype than even a single elimination game... double elimination makes it that much more likely that the grand finals will have the better players, making for more exciting games.
once again, i challenge someone to find a video game tournament where double elimination made finals less boring, and i'll challenge myself to find ones that made it even more exciting.
|
I've always felt that the player in the winner's bracket ALREADY has an advantage because he's had to play fewer games. The more games you play, the more chance you'll get unlucky or slip up and that you'll get knocked out. I see absolutely no reason why you should get an advantage over somebody in the finals just because you're arriving there from a different bracket. Plus, it's more fun to the spectators if there's no advantage
|
The HSC dealt with this nicely. The WB winner starts one game up. The blizzcon/mlg way of doing things generally leads to less exiting finals.
|
On August 16 2011 07:55 Mezmy wrote:
Every player in the tournament gets a second chance after they lose. So why should the finalist of the upper bracket not get the same privilege?
This is essentially the argument that everyone who favors the staus quo in double elimination uses. And the answer is very simple: It makes for lousy entertainment.
In most sports, a tournament builds up to the finals, and that is the most important and most exciting match. When you use double elimination the final is basically a foregone conclusion and becomes far less exciting than the buildup to it. There is a good reason why no professional sports league uses double elimination.
I don't think the winner's bracket finalist being up 1-0 is a good compromise either. Its a "gamey" solution that doesn't actually tackle the crux of the problem. Double elimination should never be used all the way up the final. As someone mentioned on page 1, beach volleyball uses double elim to narrow down the field to 4, and then goes semi-final and final, and that really needs to become the general practice. You can use it to get down to 4, 8, or 16 and the winners bracket reward is the higher seeds, and less fatigue from less games played.
|
it's fine because it's standard and i've never heard any complaints about this format until now. extended series on the other hand................
|
If the brackets leading up to the finals are Bo3, then I see no reason that the final couldn't just be played as a Bo7, without any head-start given to player from the Winner's bracket. But if an advantage must be given, then I'd say a Bo9 with a game up on the player from the LB is good.
|
yeah the winner bracket finalist has the advantage cos he hasn't lost a game. common sense. and no i'm not talking about entertainment value but if double elim is used it would be silly to not give advantage to the one that has gone undefeated. in a single elim he would have already won the tournament.
|
Not a big fan of double elimination in the finals, makes for weird games and less excitement when the favored player wins the first game..
|
On August 16 2011 08:01 akalarry wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 07:55 Kurr wrote:
I love Double elimination tournaments, except the finals. It definitely makes them less interesting.
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. really, what are some tournaments (whichever video game you watched) that you've seen recently that produced less interesting finals? not this mlg double elimination bullshit, but a real double elimination?
Blizzcon EU invite with one Bo3 as final was quite anticlimatic. US invite was quite fortunate that it went to second Bo3.
That no fault of the system but of the tourney imo. Finals should be Bo5 (like IPL2 White-Ra Nerchio)
But his point stands, I prefer a Bo7 with 1:0 start like at HSC (if participants agree), you have to remember: the guy from LB play more matches, he´s at a disadvantige from the start imo
Edit: Perhaps I have to add that my "the guy from LB play more matches, he´s at a disadvantige from the start imo" counts if it is a LAN tourney where they play all matches in a short time (MLG). Something like IPL it doesn´t matter imo
|
Its called double elimination for a reason, because you have to lose twice before you are eliminated.
I dont see how people can say that the person in Winners Bracket should not get an advantage. He has not lost a series yet so losing in the finals (even if its a longer series) would be his first lose and hence he would not be eliminated.
Being rewarded for winning every series up to the grand finals should be in every tournament in one way or another.
|
I don't mind the system the way it is, but MLG really needs to have a Bo7 finals. What's with the Bo3 obsession, anyway?
|
i think its fine the way it is. the winner deserves such an advantage for not losing a single set up to that point. To give such a small advantage isnt too fair.
|
International esport tournaments have been run this way for YEARS. This is a classic case of people who think esports started 6 months ago (75% of the sc2 scene), coming in and telling people to change how its always been run ("hey guys col is a stupid tag for complexity durr")
|
I'm not a fan of double elimination tournaments - I prefer the games to be single elimination bo5.
But if it were a double-elim I would prefer the finals to be bo7 with the winner's bracket starting with a 1-0 lead.
|
I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule.
|
|
|
On August 16 2011 12:02 Hondelul wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote:
I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule. A hard decission imo, let´s compare in IPL2  White-Ra:  CocoA 2:0--- BRAT_OK 2:0---- SeleCT 2:1--- Strelok 3:0--- MaNa 3:2---  Nerchio 3:1 Nerchio: KiWiKaKi 2:0 --- Minigun 2:1 --- ViBE 2:0--- GoOdy 2:1--- Ret 3:0--- IdrA 3:0--- ThorZaIN 3:1--- MaNa 3:2 Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist.
Or, we can give both players equal ground in terms of format instead of arbitrarily decided what is too big of an advantage.
Nerchio got to drop a set, White-ra should get to drop a set.
If you want to stop one format, and transition into another, it should happen when the BoX number increases so that one person doesn't get to drop a Bo3, while the other person gets to drop a Bo5, which is the only real issue that could be raised in regards to the quantity within a set. So get to Ro16 or Ro8, and then no more double elimination or something like that.
Trying to splice the formats to make it more exciting for the final is unfair to the player in the winner bracket final. Furthermore, for the people deciding on their own that "Playing less games is an advantage enough", that's an advantage they earned by not losing, it's inherent to the format, just because the earned their way to having to play fewer games, doesn't mean they should be penalized and not given the same ability to drop a set that everyone else in the tournament gets.
If you want double elimination all the way up to the finals, it's absolutely unfair to remove it for the WB finalist, no amount of, "Well, he had to play less" changes that. They don't get to drop a set, their opponent got to drop a set, trying to create a comparison to something else shouldn't be necessary, all of this is inherent to the format.
In short, if you want single elimination, you want single elimination, if you want double elimination till the RoX, that's fine too, but if you want double elimination for everyone except the WB finalist, that is absolutely unfair.
|
On August 16 2011 12:09 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 12:02 Hondelul wrote:On August 16 2011 11:10 Orcasgt24 wrote:
I can not belive people think having a Bo7 with the winners bracket guy getting a 1-0 head-start is fair...
His opponent dropped 2/3 games to someone earlier. Why should the guy who hasn't dropped 2/3 games to someone be punished so harshly? This idea is acctually WORSE then MLG's extended seirse rule. A hard decission imo, let´s compare in IPL2 White-Ra: CocoA 2:0--- BRAT_OK 2:0---- SeleCT 2:1--- Strelok 3:0--- MaNa 3:2--- Nerchio 3:1 Nerchio: KiWiKaKi 2:0 --- Minigun 2:1 --- ViBE 2:0--- GoOdy 2:1--- Ret 3:0--- IdrA 3:0--- ThorZaIN 3:1--- MaNa 3:2 Should White-Ra have an advantage in the finals? Yes What advantage is fair? Having the opponent to win 2 Bo5 is too strong imo, LB have a way larger way. An Bo7 with 1:0 is (imo!) the best way. Keeps the excitement and isn´t unfair for the WB finalist. Or, we can give both players equal ground in terms of format instead of arbitrarily decided what is too big of an advantage. Nerchio got to drop a set, White-ra should get to drop a set. If you want to stop one format, and transition into another, it should happen when the BoX number increases so that one person doesn't get to drop a Bo3, while the other person gets to drop a Bo5, which is the only real issue that could be raised in regards to the quantity within a set. So get to Ro16 or Ro8, and then no more double elimination or something like that. Trying to splice the formats to make it more exciting for the final is unfair to the player in the winner bracket final. Furthermore, for the people deciding on their own that "Playing less games is an advantage enough", that's an advantage they earned by not losing, it's inherent to the format, just because the earned their way to having to play fewer games, doesn't mean they should be penalized and not given the same ability to drop a set that everyone else in the tournament gets. If you want double elimination all the way up to the finals, it's absolutely unfair to remove it for the WB finalist, no amount of, "Well, he had to play less" changes that. They don't get to drop a set, their opponent got to drop a set, trying to create a comparison to something else shouldn't be necessary, all of this is inherent to the format. In short, if you want single elimination, you want single elimination, if you want double elimination till the RoX, that's fine too, but if you want double elimination for everyone except the WB finalist, that is absolutely unfair.
Hm, I think I made it sound quite fair.. You sound quite harsh
For my example: White-Ra had to play 6 series (7 if he lost against Nerchio in the 1st); Nerchio had to play 10 if he won the first against White-Ra.
I totally agree the WB have to get an advantage, but where is the cut? You have a good point with the change from Bo3 to Bo5, but there are no overall rules.
At HSC none seemed to be offended by WB being up 1:0, might be the atmosphere, that none took it too serious (I personly don´t believe that) OR they saw this as fair as being up one Bo5 series.
Therefore my point with the Pro poll, I think arguing between us don´t make much sense 
(PS: no, I don´t want single elimination)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
