After two weeks of intense qualfiers, we're now just days away from the start of the main event. Which means that it's time to, finally, announce our bracket.
Before we get to the good stuff, we want to make two notes regarding the seeding process. We want to be transparent but also explain why this is not a conflict of interest, keeping the competitive intergrity of the EPT intact.
Creating the bracket TL.net and Team Liquid have always been close which, in most cases, has been a good thing for both parties. In this instance, though, there are some potential problems. With four Liquid players qualifying for the main event, we want to make sure that the integrity of TSL 5, and the EPT as a whole, is not questioned. We therefore decided to give DreamHack full control over creating the bracket. We gave feedback on the seeding tiebreakers but the final decision was made by DreamHack, without any interference from Liquid staff.
Breaking ties The first round of the main event was seeded according to current EPT points. In this, there were two ties:
Elazer and soO
TIME and Future
2019 WCS points was chosen to use as tiebreakers. TIME gained more WCS points in 2019 than Future, hence he gets the higher seed. Breaking the Elazer/soO tie was a bit trickier, as they competed in different systems. So global WCS points earned in 2019 was chosen as a tiebreaker, giving soO the higher seed of the two.
The bracket
We've chosen to go with a 24-man double-elimination bracket for TSL 5. So even if a player got a tough first round matchup, they'll still have the chance to take home the entire tournament.
The entire upper bracket will feature Bo5's. The first round of the lower bracket will be Bo3 but after that it's back to Bo5's for the players. Then when we reach the grand final, on the 7th of June, we'll up the ante and make it a best of 7.
Only the first rounds of the Upper Bracket shown. For the full, double-elimination bracket, check Liquipedia
The main event and scheduling
The bracket play of TSL 5 will start this Saturday, May 16 12:00pm GMT (GMT+00:00) with the first round of the bracket. However, the bracket will not play out in a strictly "top to bottom" fashion. We want to avoid scheduling players at very uncomfortable hours and may, therefore, move matches around. The matches will not be pushed to other days but will be scheduled when we know the full lineup for each day. Make sure you keep an eye on Liquipedia and our calendar to keep up to date! You can catch all the action at Twitch.tv/TeamLiquid. See you there!
Oh, one more thing. Of course the TSL needs to have a couple of competitions. Keep an eye on the site to catch them, later on in the week!
In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
Overall bracket seems fine, I would have liked even less mirrors in the opening round (especially cause 2 out of the 3 round one mirrors lead into more mirrors).
On May 12 2020 03:11 Pandemona wrote: Reynor, Future and Heromarine is a beautiful bracket too, 3 awesome young europeann players. (all be it heromarine is 22 xD)
Yeah Heromarine isn't that young and Future isn't that European.
On May 12 2020 03:13 Azzur wrote: What happens in the Grand Finals? Does the Winner's Bracket receive a 1 game advantage?
I reckon a good way for the Winner's Bracket to receive an advantage is to get 4 map picks.
How would that work in practice? Cause in order for that to have an effect on a bo7 with a 7 map pool you couldn't go A-B-A-B until one map is left. A-A-B-A-B-A-B seems like a pretty big hole to dig yourself out of as the guy from the loser bracket.
On May 12 2020 03:13 Azzur wrote: What happens in the Grand Finals? Does the Winner's Bracket receive a 1 game advantage?
I reckon a good way for the Winner's Bracket to receive an advantage is to get 4 map picks.
How would that work in practice? Cause in order for that to have an effect on a bo7 with a 7 map pool you couldn't go A-B-A-B until one map is left. A-A-B-A-B-A-B seems like a pretty big hole to dig yourself out of as the guy from the loser bracket.
I thought there were more maps than 7 with players vetoing them.
However, in the current situation of 7 maps, I would go A-B-A-B-A-B-A. The theory is that the Winner Bracket gets to play on the most preferred map on the last match.
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
I dunno, I'm okay with the player from the winner bracket having some sort of advantage but I'm never ever in favor of having a chance that a tournament ends on a default map win that only arbitrarily exists because "Well we should give them SOMETHING".
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
The gradual acceptance of no-advantage double elim finals in various esports is a pretty interesting phenomenon (besides the FGC anyway). Perhaps it's reflective of viewer taste that is willing to compromise absolute competitive consistency for entertainment's sake. I recall the Stout MSL finals in 2003 where Nal_Ra won a sub 60-minute 3-0 due to having a one map upper bracket adv—MSL eliminated the winners adv after that.
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
The gradual acceptance of no-advantage double elim finals in various esports is a pretty interesting phenomenon (besides the FGC anyway). Perhaps it's reflective of viewer taste that is willing to compromise absolute competitive consistency for entertainment's sake. I recall the Stout MSL finals in 2003 where Nal_Ra won a sub 60-minute 3-0 due to having a one map upper bracket adv—MSL eliminated the winners adv after that).
Well players dislike it pretty much from what i heared, same goes for a 24-DE bracket btw.
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
The gradual acceptance of no-advantage double elim finals in various esports is a pretty interesting phenomenon (besides the FGC anyway). Perhaps it's reflective of viewer taste that is willing to compromise absolute competitive consistency for entertainment's sake. I recall the Stout MSL finals in 2003 where Nal_Ra won a sub 60-minute 3-0 due to having a one map upper bracket adv—MSL eliminated the winners adv after that).
Well players dislike it pretty much from what i heared, same goes for a 24-DE bracket btw.
Ah, the compromises our noble progamers make because they realize they are also working in an entertainment industry
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
Double elim's fine. Just because people haven't used it before doesn't make it bad. I'd love for more tournaments to use Swiss brackets for example (though those can be tricky to schedule).
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
The gradual acceptance of no-advantage double elim finals in various esports is a pretty interesting phenomenon (besides the FGC anyway). Perhaps it's reflective of viewer taste that is willing to compromise absolute competitive consistency for entertainment's sake. I recall the Stout MSL finals in 2003 where Nal_Ra won a sub 60-minute 3-0 due to having a one map upper bracket adv—MSL eliminated the winners adv after that).
Well players dislike it pretty much from what i heared, same goes for a 24-DE bracket btw.
Ah, the compromises our noble progamers make because they realize they are also working in an entertainment industry
Well some of the players only participate in it because of the points ...
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
Double elim's fine. Just because people haven't used it before doesn't make it bad. I'd love for more tournaments to use Swiss brackets for example (though those can be tricky to schedule).
No winner's bracket advantage kinda sucks though.
a normal double elim (with 2^n players, n a natural number) is fine, but a 24-DE (with all players starting in the upper bracket is pretty pad
it makes no difference if you lose your first or second match for players that have to play the first round
so the first whole day is pretty unimportant and not watch worthy to me already
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
Double elim's fine. Just because people haven't used it before doesn't make it bad. I'd love for more tournaments to use Swiss brackets for example (though those can be tricky to schedule).
No winner's bracket advantage kinda sucks though.
They could use it as a unique chance to come up with a tangible winner bracket advantage that isn't just handing out a free map win.
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
Double elim's fine. Just because people haven't used it before doesn't make it bad. I'd love for more tournaments to use Swiss brackets for example (though those can be tricky to schedule).
No winner's bracket advantage kinda sucks though.
They could use it as a unique chance to come up with a tangible winner bracket advantage that isn't just handing out a free map win.
I asked Julmust if there was any advantage in the grand finals for the player coming from the winners bracket, his answer was just "nope". (on liquipedia discord)
So I think its safe to assume that there will not be any advantage at all, which is just stupid and unfair to the player coming from the winner bracket.
I usually really like tl and what the admins do most of the time but imo for TSL5 the format and rules are just bad.
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
Double elim's fine. Just because people haven't used it before doesn't make it bad. I'd love for more tournaments to use Swiss brackets for example (though those can be tricky to schedule).
No winner's bracket advantage kinda sucks though.
They could use it as a unique chance to come up with a tangible winner bracket advantage that isn't just handing out a free map win.
I asked Julmust if there was any advantage in the grand finals for the player coming from the winners bracket, his answer was just "nope". (on liquipedia discord)
So I think its safe to assume that there will not be any advantage at all, which is just stupid and unfair to the player coming from the winner bracket.
I usually really like tl and what the admins do most of the time but imo for TSL5 the format and rules are just bad.
Can you name any SC2 tournaments - where the finals began with an advantage for one player - that ended in what is remembered as a good finals? It is worth considering that the ultimate goal of any tournament is providing entertainment value, and winners bracket advantage typically has not served that purpose. This is (largely) why they have been phased out from SC2 tournaments.
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
Double elim's fine. Just because people haven't used it before doesn't make it bad. I'd love for more tournaments to use Swiss brackets for example (though those can be tricky to schedule).
No winner's bracket advantage kinda sucks though.
They could use it as a unique chance to come up with a tangible winner bracket advantage that isn't just handing out a free map win.
I asked Julmust if there was any advantage in the grand finals for the player coming from the winners bracket, his answer was just "nope". (on liquipedia discord)
So I think its safe to assume that there will not be any advantage at all, which is just stupid and unfair to the player coming from the winner bracket.
I usually really like tl and what the admins do most of the time but imo for TSL5 the format and rules are just bad.
Can you name any SC2 tournaments - where the finals began with an advantage for one player - that ended in what is remembered as a good finals? It is worth considering that the ultimate goal of any tournament is providing entertainment value, and winners bracket advantage typically has not served that purpose. This is (largely) why they have been phased out from SC2 tournaments.
e.g. HomeStory Cup/20 (there it even was a whole match advantage not just a game)
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
Double elim's fine. Just because people haven't used it before doesn't make it bad. I'd love for more tournaments to use Swiss brackets for example (though those can be tricky to schedule).
No winner's bracket advantage kinda sucks though.
a normal double elim (with 2^n players, n a natural number) is fine, but a 24-DE (with all players starting in the upper bracket is pretty pad
it makes no difference if you lose your first or second match for players that have to play the first round
so the first whole day is pretty unimportant and not watch worthy to me already
Edit: Oh I get what your saying. I guess its inevitable if you want to have a complete DE where no party starts from the losers bracket (which is better). It does have its downsides I guess, but I'm still super pumped for all the additional games.
e.g. HomeStory Cup/20 (there it even was a whole match advantage not just a game)
Have to say I do like this method.
It's ridiculous if you win all the way to the final and then lose. You and the other player both lost one series the whole tournament, yet you're eliminated for it and they weren't.
I realy like a double elimination breaket, as it allows snipped players to redeem themselves in the lower breaket. Some kind of advantage for the winner breaket guy would be nice, I gues.
On May 12 2020 03:01 ZigguratOfUr wrote: In the end we got a nice mix of favourites and underdogs. Having a double elim. tournament that lasts this long has some upsides and downsides. On one hand the players have more time to prep. for their matches (a rarity outside of Korea), on the other we'll see what the scheduling will be like.
Incidentally what (if any) is the winner's bracket advantage for the finals?
no advantage for the finals (what imo is stupid, but what ever, the format of 24DE is already a pretty bad idea (its only used 3 times before on the whole sc2 liquipedia for a reason))
Double elim's fine. Just because people haven't used it before doesn't make it bad. I'd love for more tournaments to use Swiss brackets for example (though those can be tricky to schedule).
No winner's bracket advantage kinda sucks though.
a normal double elim (with 2^n players, n a natural number) is fine, but a 24-DE (with all players starting in the upper bracket is pretty pad
it makes no difference if you lose your first or second match for players that have to play the first round
so the first whole day is pretty unimportant and not watch worthy to me already
Edit: Oh I get what your saying. I guess its inevitable if you want to have a complete DE where no party starts from the losers bracket (which is better). It does have its downsides I guess, but I'm still super pumped for all the additional games.
a DE bracket with 32 or 16 players is way way way better than a 24 de bracket, because this BS doesn’t happen with these brackets at all
On May 12 2020 05:35 dbRic1203 wrote: I realy like a double elimination breaket, as it allows snipped players to redeem themselves in the lower breaket. Some kind of advantage for the winner breaket guy would be nice, I gues.
i am not against double elim brackets, but it should be DE brackets with 2^n players (n a natural number) other DE brackets (with all players starting in winners bracket) are just utter BS
e.g. HomeStory Cup/20 (there it even was a whole match advantage not just a game)
Have to say I do like this method.
It's ridiculous if you win all the way to the final and then lose. You and the other player both lost one series the whole tournament, yet you're eliminated for it and they weren't.
It is the fairest possible way to do it, but usually not done this way due to it taking away the viewer experience somewhat, that is why often a 1-0 advantage is applied as a compromise
not having any advantage at all is just plain unfair (which kinda fits this event with how the qualifiers went (bad rules and changing them without notifying the players beforehand) tbh)
e.g. HomeStory Cup/20 (there it even was a whole match advantage not just a game)
Have to say I do like this method.
It's ridiculous if you win all the way to the final and then lose. You and the other player both lost one series the whole tournament, yet you're eliminated for it and they weren't.
It is the fairest possible way to do it, but usually not done this way due to it taking away the viewer experience somewhat, that is why often a 1-0 advantage is applied as a compromise
not having any advantage at all is just plain unfair (which kinda fits this event with how the qualifiers went (bad rules and changing them without notifying the players beforehand) tbh)
1-0 advantages are really the worst of both worlds. Detracts from the viewer experience, but also not enough of an advantage to be fair to the winner bracket player.
It is not true that there is no advantage for the winner bracket player. They have to play 1-2 less series to get there. That is enough of an advantage by itself. Especially for Protoss/Terran who rely on prepared builds. Anything more is just dumb and makes the final feel lost already.
Also the point someone made above about the winner finalist not losing any matches and then losing the finals isn't very valid either. For this event that could theoretically happen but most events have group stages and in several SC2 events the winners bracket finalist had lost group stage match(es) while his opponent didn't so it happened that they finished with the same or outright worse series score but still won the event because of winners bracket advantage. How is that fair? Winners bracket advantage is never fair in StarCraft.
On May 12 2020 11:23 JJH777 wrote: It is not true that there is no advantage for the winner bracket player. They have to play 1-2 less series to get there. That is enough of an advantage by itself. Especially for Protoss/Terran who rely on prepared builds. Anything more is just dumb and makes the final feel lost already.
Also the point someone made above about the winner finalist not losing any matches and then losing the finals isn't very valid either. For this event that could theoretically happen but most events have group stages and in several SC2 events the winners bracket finalist had lost group stage match(es) while his opponent didn't so it happened that they finished with the same or outright worse series score but still won the event because of winners bracket advantage. How is that fair? Winners bracket advantage is never fair in StarCraft.
This is the same thing I was thinking. The finals are the finals. The final showdown. You can squibble about who got scratched more to get there but what's important is who wins the final showdown. In other sports, teams will all have varying stats before the 2 best reach the final game, but then, its about what happens on that day.
And so many BO5s is going to be lots of amazing SC2!. Pumped! <3
On May 12 2020 11:23 JJH777 wrote: It is not true that there is no advantage for the winner bracket player. They have to play 1-2 less series to get there. That is enough of an advantage by itself. Especially for Protoss/Terran who rely on prepared builds. Anything more is just dumb and makes the final feel lost already.
Also the point someone made above about the winner finalist not losing any matches and then losing the finals isn't very valid either. For this event that could theoretically happen but most events have group stages and in several SC2 events the winners bracket finalist had lost group stage match(es) while his opponent didn't so it happened that they finished with the same or outright worse series score but still won the event because of winners bracket advantage. How is that fair? Winners bracket advantage is never fair in StarCraft.
The entire point of a double elimination bracket is that everyone has to lose twice. The earlier you lose for the first time, the more games you have to play by its very nature. Giving a second chance to everyone except for one player is manifestly unfair towards them. And the argument that "anything more is just dumb and makes the final feel lost already" isn't arguing that it's fair, but rather than this unfairness is acceptable for the sake of entertainment, which is entirely different.
Poor Heromarine, very likely facing Reynor first and even if he wins that, most likely Serral next. Feels like WCS all over again for him probably XD But at least he got a losers bracket to maybe show some games against competition he does not face so often (koreans).
I´m hyped for this event, as I was for every TSL, can´t wait for it to start already, or better, get some good reads beforehand by the TL.net staff ?!
TL could have done a better job rigging the bracket, I mean, look at it, certain players can get into the winners finals by playing only mirror matchups, smh. (Parting, Mana, Showtime, Serral, Sepcial, Time, Cure) Cool that we have double elim tho, but so many mirror matchups coming up, at least in the upper bracket.
On May 12 2020 15:06 Geo.Rion wrote: TL could have done a better job rigging the bracket, I mean, look at it, certain players can get into the winners finals by playing only mirror matchups, smh. (Parting, Mana, Showtime, Serral, Sepcial, Time, Cure) Cool that we have double elim tho, but so many mirror matchups coming up, at least in the upper bracket.
Well obviously non-mirror matches would have been nicer, but as this gives EPT Points, there should be some propper seeding mechanism in place, to make it fair. So nothing realy to do about the mirrors.
I'm very happy that we get some high quality Starcraft!
That said, I'd love it to be more group stagey. Groups of 4 (GSL style) or at least Groups of 6 (round robin) . GSL style has incredible hype potential (like the recent group A) while still beeing incredible fair to all players
Some viewers (like me for example) are more intrested in fairness than entertainment or to be more specific when i see that rules are not fair to one of the playeres the competition is losing its entertainment value in my eyes. Where is the fun in watching football game when one team starts with 9 palyers and other with eleven? Same with unfair DE.
This format is such a hype killer. And even worst, it's the reason why we got some stupid situations where losing brought a better seed. And no advantage for the player from the winner bracket ? Wtf
On May 12 2020 17:57 stilt wrote: This format is such a hype killer. And even worst, it's the reason why we got some stupid situations where losing brought a better seed. And no advantage for the player from the winner bracket ? Wtf
unfortunate about the qualifiers, but what's this new outrage about no winner finalist advantage? It's not a thing, it hasnt been a thing for a long time, and it lead to shitty finals when it was a thing years ago.
The people who usually end up winning the upper bracket are anyways the best players, like Maru, Serral, Dark it's fine that they're "robbed" of a second chance. On the flip side, they're always invited to everything and have highly preferential treatment in the beginning (skipping rounds, being nr 1-2 seed in brackets, the whole group-picking thing in GSL). Overall it balances out, and it would make no sense to bring back the archaic 1 map advantage from like 2013 or so.
On May 12 2020 17:02 StarcraftPeffo wrote: Day 9 comes in sunday, right?
Correct!
On May 12 2020 18:46 LemonyTang wrote: Are servers still being decided by the 'fairest' rule?
No. There will be another rule in place. There is still a (very) small amount of leeway for server scheduling but it's not the fairest server rule used in the qualifier.
I personally do not like the schedule conflicts with all the ESL Open CUps in these weeks, but what ever
You know there is an "Edit" button right?
Everyone has to play ONE match on sunday. Should be no trouble at all to schedule around ESL weekly
there is a 15 minute walkover timer for esl open cups (starting after a match becomes available) .. and eu esl open cups usually go from 2pm until ~7 or 8 pm cest while TSL goes from 2pm until 10 pm, so i do not see how that will properly work
regarding the edit button: i know that it exists, but the first post was for the announcement as i added the stuff on liquipedia and the second message was my personal opinion
It seems strongly counter-intuitive that a person who wins the first round, falls into the loser and then goes to win the whole thing will play more series than a player who would lose in their round 1 match and then climb solely through the LB. Should it not be the other way around? Would it not be that way if the R1 losers matchd only R1 losers and then R2 losers were seeded up?
On May 12 2020 20:00 ballehatten wrote: Nice to see no advantage in the finals
So you rather have an unfair event than a fair one, good to know ....
Gotta blame the organizers for trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to the tournament format rather than a random viewer who just wants to see a nice 0-0 on the scoreboard when the grand final begins
I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
I can't believe there is still debate on double elimination finals. You need to lose 2 series to be knocked out. That's it. End of discussion. No game advantage in the finals. No victory for the losers bracket player for winning only 1 set. If you want to do a bo3 in the second series instead of bo5 to save on time (because SC games can be long), as HSC did once, that's fine. To literally punish only one player and ignore the rules is absurd.
The "losers bracket player needs to play more games so that's the winner's advantage" is ridiculous. Playing more games is the punishment for losing when you do in the bracket. In larger brackets, losing round 1 and going on to win the tournament means many more games played vs losing late in bracket.
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series.
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series.
perosnally that leave a bitter taste if the finals are decided 4-3 with the winner bracket player winning. To me the finals is the ultimate test between 2 players. It's kind of disappointing to know the winner really just won by drawing 3-3.
The disadvantage having to show way more of your strategies as well as general fatigue from playing a lot more series is underplayed by a lot of people here. (fatigue in the case of TSL not really being case because of the lengthy format but SC2 on the highest level requires way more energy than some people realize.)
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series.
perosnally that leave a bitter taste if the finals are decided 4-3 with the winner bracket player winning. To me the finals is the ultimate test between 2 players. It's kind of disappointing to know the winner really just won by drawing 3-3.
The disadvantage having to show way more of your strategies as well as general fatigue from playing a lot more series is underplayed by a lot of people here. (fatigue in the case of TSL not really being case because of the lengthy format but SC2 on the highest level requires way more energy than some people realize.)
I agree that a 3-3 final is lame, but so is the potential for player A to beat player B in winner's finals 3-0 and then lose to player B 3-2 in grands. This would mean they both only lost 1 set (to each other) but the player that went 5-3 head to head lost.
What are your feelings on Bo5 set 1 and bo3 set 2 (if needed) for grands?
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series.
perosnally that leave a bitter taste if the finals are decided 4-3 with the winner bracket player winning. To me the finals is the ultimate test between 2 players. It's kind of disappointing to know the winner really just won by drawing 3-3.
The disadvantage having to show way more of your strategies as well as general fatigue from playing a lot more series is underplayed by a lot of people here. (fatigue in the case of TSL not really being case because of the lengthy format but SC2 on the highest level requires way more energy than some people realize.)
I agree that a 3-3 final is lame, but so is the potential for player A to beat player B in winner's finals 3-0 and then lose to player B 3-2 in grands. This would mean they both only lost 1 set (to each other) but the player that went 5-3 head to head lost.
What are your feelings on Bo5 set 1 and bo3 set 2 (if needed) for grands?
You can't plan a tournament around every possible result though. Like taking the format you mentioned, what if player B loses 2-3 initially, then wins 3-0 in the grand finals and then player A wins 2-1 in the extra bo3? "You may have lost the grand finals 2-4 overall player A, but congratulations, you're the champ anyway." is the lamest outcome. Not to mention it's a much less fair format than a Bo7 with 1 game advantage - A can win the finals by winning 2, 3 or 4 maps, B always needs to win 5.
I'd like to see a Bo7 format tested where the winner bracket player has the right to change the map order to some degree (like the 1st seed in GSL group selections can switch 2 players). Create favorable conditions without outright handing them the wins.
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series.
perosnally that leave a bitter taste if the finals are decided 4-3 with the winner bracket player winning. To me the finals is the ultimate test between 2 players. It's kind of disappointing to know the winner really just won by drawing 3-3.
The disadvantage having to show way more of your strategies as well as general fatigue from playing a lot more series is underplayed by a lot of people here. (fatigue in the case of TSL not really being case because of the lengthy format but SC2 on the highest level requires way more energy than some people realize.)
I agree that a 3-3 final is lame, but so is the potential for player A to beat player B in winner's finals 3-0 and then lose to player B 3-2 in grands. This would mean they both only lost 1 set (to each other) but the player that went 5-3 head to head lost.
What are your feelings on Bo5 set 1 and bo3 set 2 (if needed) for grands?
You can't plan a tournament around every possible result though. Like taking the format you mentioned, what if player B loses 2-3 initially, then wins 3-0 in the grand finals and then player A wins 2-1 in the extra bo3? "You may have lost the grand finals 2-4 overall player A, but congratulations, you're the champ anyway." is the lamest outcome. Not to mention it's a much less fair format than a Bo7 with 1 game advantage - A can win the finals by winning 2, 3 or 4 maps, B always needs to win 5.
I'd like to see a Bo7 format tested where the winner bracket player has the right to change the map order to some degree (like the 1st seed in GSL group selections can switch 2 players). Create favorable conditions without outright handing them the wins.
In that case, player B still won 2 sets to 1 and you just chose to ignore winner's finals in the game count. Sets always take priority over game count. The problem with not doing 2 sets in grand finals is that you can have a situation where first and second place only lost 1 set, completely defeating the point of a double elim bracket. That is the only reason I brought up game count, because in that case set losses are tied at 1 each. A 1 game advantage bo7 I'm okay with, but I don't think is ideal for either the spectators or the players. The 1 game advantage is arbitrary and not indicative of a set win advantage as it should be. However, I still view it as an acceptable middle ground.
Also, the bo3 would be played only after both players have each dropped a set in bracket and is an independent set from the first set in grand finals. Ideally, this set would also be a bo5. This is the proper way to do it. You're making an unfair comparison by saying player A only needs to win 2 games in grands vs 5 because you're ignoring the rest of the bracket results and set count entirely. The only reason I suggested bo3, as it has already been done by HSC, is because SC games can be long and a potential 10 game grand finals (if each set went 5 games) would be exhausting for everyone involved.
Edit: Misunderstood what you said for one part, made some edits
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series.
perosnally that leave a bitter taste if the finals are decided 4-3 with the winner bracket player winning. To me the finals is the ultimate test between 2 players. It's kind of disappointing to know the winner really just won by drawing 3-3.
The disadvantage having to show way more of your strategies as well as general fatigue from playing a lot more series is underplayed by a lot of people here. (fatigue in the case of TSL not really being case because of the lengthy format but SC2 on the highest level requires way more energy than some people realize.)
I agree that a 3-3 final is lame, but so is the potential for player A to beat player B in winner's finals 3-0 and then lose to player B 3-2 in grands. This would mean they both only lost 1 set (to each other) but the player that went 5-3 head to head lost.
What are your feelings on Bo5 set 1 and bo3 set 2 (if needed) for grands?
You can't plan a tournament around every possible result though. Like taking the format you mentioned, what if player B loses 2-3 initially, then wins 3-0 in the grand finals and then player A wins 2-1 in the extra bo3? "You may have lost the grand finals 2-4 overall player A, but congratulations, you're the champ anyway." is the lamest outcome. Not to mention it's a much less fair format than a Bo7 with 1 game advantage - A can win the finals by winning 2, 3 or 4 maps, B always needs to win 5.
I'd like to see a Bo7 format tested where the winner bracket player has the right to change the map order to some degree (like the 1st seed in GSL group selections can switch 2 players). Create favorable conditions without outright handing them the wins.
I like the map advantage idea too. Even if each player picks every other map, if the winner picks first in a full series they also get to pick the ace map too. It's very similar to home court advantage in the NBA.
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series.
Leading 1-0 in a bo7 is definitely preferred to the to bo5/bo3 stuff. Overall I think a clean bo7 is still the nicest finals wise. I really appreciate it in a sense but it's actually kind of funny that some fans care about the ultimate fairness of a tournament format more than most players.
On May 12 2020 20:00 ballehatten wrote: Nice to see no advantage in the finals
So you rather have an unfair event than a fair one, good to know ....
If you really care about fairness then you should want every SC2 event to be a giant round robin with large incentives for winning games even once mathematically eliminated and the player who finishes with the highest mapscore wins. That is the only possible way to make an event that is truly fair from start to finish. Every other type of event is going to have luck that favors certain people. That doesn't happen because it would be an unbelievably boring event.
Winners bracket advantage is just stupid. There's a pro in here saying that most pros don't like it. That should tell you everything by itself. Anyone who is playing in an event is still going to try their absolute hardest to get to the finals from the winners bracket. Having to play more games and having less time to rest before the finals is already a big disadvantage and I guarantee that if you look at the statistics the player who comes from the winners bracket usually wins regardless of whether there is an advantage or not.
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series.
perosnally that leave a bitter taste if the finals are decided 4-3 with the winner bracket player winning. To me the finals is the ultimate test between 2 players. It's kind of disappointing to know the winner really just won by drawing 3-3.
The disadvantage having to show way more of your strategies as well as general fatigue from playing a lot more series is underplayed by a lot of people here. (fatigue in the case of TSL not really being case because of the lengthy format but SC2 on the highest level requires way more energy than some people realize.)
I agree that a 3-3 final is lame, but so is the potential for player A to beat player B in winner's finals 3-0 and then lose to player B 3-2 in grands. This would mean they both only lost 1 set (to each other) but the player that went 5-3 head to head lost.
What are your feelings on Bo5 set 1 and bo3 set 2 (if needed) for grands?
You can't plan a tournament around every possible result though. Like taking the format you mentioned, what if player B loses 2-3 initially, then wins 3-0 in the grand finals and then player A wins 2-1 in the extra bo3? "You may have lost the grand finals 2-4 overall player A, but congratulations, you're the champ anyway." is the lamest outcome. Not to mention it's a much less fair format than a Bo7 with 1 game advantage - A can win the finals by winning 2, 3 or 4 maps, B always needs to win 5.
I'd like to see a Bo7 format tested where the winner bracket player has the right to change the map order to some degree (like the 1st seed in GSL group selections can switch 2 players). Create favorable conditions without outright handing them the wins.
I like the map advantage idea too. Even if each player picks every other map, if the winner picks first in a full series they also get to pick the ace map too. It's very similar to home court advantage in the NBA.
You're still playing on the same 7 maps though. Whereas in the NBA you'll play more games on your home court if all games are played. Having more control over the order of the maps is more a psychological advantage than anything else.
How about this: the winner of the winners final is deemed the "Winners Winner," and the winner of the losers final the "Losers Winner." Both receive the same amount of prize money, but the winners winner gets mod powers on tl.net for a week, to whack shit talkers in the LR thread. Or, like, a slightly larger trophy. Problem solved! Everybody's a winner, except for the "Losers Loser."
As a viewer I have to admit I kinda dig the format where the losers bracket player has to win two series, but there are probably a lot of good reasons why it isn't used much.
these arguments are funny because frankly even bo7 is statistically not that strong of an indicator of the better player. the only "fair" way would be having every series be a bo49 or something like that, all played on one map. but as people have pointed out for years, tournaments and playoffs aren't about fairness or accuracy, they're about entertainment and drama. players should stfu and win games, fans should stfu and watch
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
Need an opinion on the HSC format then (1 map up in bo7)! To me, it always seemed the reasonable middle-ground between winner advantage and time-consrtraint affected doubl series.
perosnally that leave a bitter taste if the finals are decided 4-3 with the winner bracket player winning. To me the finals is the ultimate test between 2 players. It's kind of disappointing to know the winner really just won by drawing 3-3.
The disadvantage having to show way more of your strategies as well as general fatigue from playing a lot more series is underplayed by a lot of people here. (fatigue in the case of TSL not really being case because of the lengthy format but SC2 on the highest level requires way more energy than some people realize.)
I agree that a 3-3 final is lame, but so is the potential for player A to beat player B in winner's finals 3-0 and then lose to player B 3-2 in grands. This would mean they both only lost 1 set (to each other) but the player that went 5-3 head to head lost.
What are your feelings on Bo5 set 1 and bo3 set 2 (if needed) for grands?
You can't plan a tournament around every possible result though. Like taking the format you mentioned, what if player B loses 2-3 initially, then wins 3-0 in the grand finals and then player A wins 2-1 in the extra bo3? "You may have lost the grand finals 2-4 overall player A, but congratulations, you're the champ anyway." is the lamest outcome. Not to mention it's a much less fair format than a Bo7 with 1 game advantage - A can win the finals by winning 2, 3 or 4 maps, B always needs to win 5.
I'd like to see a Bo7 format tested where the winner bracket player has the right to change the map order to some degree (like the 1st seed in GSL group selections can switch 2 players). Create favorable conditions without outright handing them the wins.
I like the map advantage idea too. Even if each player picks every other map, if the winner picks first in a full series they also get to pick the ace map too. It's very similar to home court advantage in the NBA.
You're still playing on the same 7 maps though. Whereas in the NBA you'll play more games on your home court if all games are played. Having more control over the order of the maps is more a psychological advantage than anything else.
On May 13 2020 07:56 brickrd wrote: these arguments are funny because frankly even bo7 is statistically not that strong of an indicator of the better player. the only "fair" way would be having every series be a bo49 or something like that, all played on one map. but as people have pointed out for years, tournaments and playoffs aren't about fairness or accuracy, they're about entertainment and drama. players should stfu and win games, fans should stfu and watch
How is that in the slightest relevant? Fairness and being a strong indicator of who the best player is aren't the same thing.
Earlier on in the thread, I suggested that the Winner Bracket winner should have a slight map pick advantage, and propose map picking order to be A-B-A-B-A-B-A. The theory is they will be able to choose the last map which will be most comfortable for them in the decider.
However, reading the thread further, I like some of the other suggestions. My preferred one: - Winner Bracket vetoes 1 map and gets to choose a repeat map, which is played on game7.
I think the Winner Bracket deserves some sort of advantage but we don't want to detract from the viewer experience. I don't think this repeat map affects viewers at all - if it gets to g7, it will be a great viewer experience!
On May 13 2020 13:54 Azzur wrote: Earlier on in the thread, I suggested that the Winner Bracket winner should have a slight map pick advantage, and propose map picking order to be A-B-A-B-A-B-A. The theory is they will be able to choose the last map which will be most comfortable for them in the decider.
However, reading the thread further, I like some of the other suggestions. My preferred one: - Winner Bracket vetoes 1 map and gets to choose a repeat map, which is played on game7.
I think the Winner Bracket deserves some sort of advantage but we don't want to detract from the viewer experience. I don't think this repeat map affects viewers at all - if it gets to g7, it will be a great viewer experience!
That sounds very... variable. Let's say you have INno vs Clem as the finals. The map pick advantage hardly matters. Let's say you have INno vs Serral as the finals. Well good luck Serral, games 1 and 7 are on Purity and Industry.
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
I know several Pros that really dislike the no-advantage you seem to like ...
On May 13 2020 01:13 Liquid`TLO wrote: I just want to point out that from my experience SC2 pros don't even like winner bracket advantage. Going through the lower bracket can sometimes be considered a bigger feat than having a perfect run through the upper bracket. Most pros prefer an even fight for the title.
I know several Pros that really dislike the no-advantage you seem to like ...
I know several Pros that really like the no-advantage you seem to dislike ...
On May 13 2020 13:54 Azzur wrote: Earlier on in the thread, I suggested that the Winner Bracket winner should have a slight map pick advantage, and propose map picking order to be A-B-A-B-A-B-A. The theory is they will be able to choose the last map which will be most comfortable for them in the decider.
However, reading the thread further, I like some of the other suggestions. My preferred one: - Winner Bracket vetoes 1 map and gets to choose a repeat map, which is played on game7.
I think the Winner Bracket deserves some sort of advantage but we don't want to detract from the viewer experience. I don't think this repeat map affects viewers at all - if it gets to g7, it will be a great viewer experience!
That sounds very... variable. Let's say you have INno vs Clem as the finals. The map pick advantage hardly matters. Let's say you have INno vs Serral as the finals. Well good luck Serral, games 1 and 7 are on Purity and Industry.
Well, there is no such thing as an "ideal" solution since there are competing factors of fairness vs viewer experience.
I think most ppl will agree that the Winner Bracket deserves an advantage, and I think that most ppl will also agree that this advantage should not detract from the viewer experience.
If it's Inno vs Clem, the map picks will allow Inno to have a more comfortable match - the advantage may hardly matter but it's still an advantage regardless?
If Inno vs Serral, even though g1 and g7 is on Purity and Industry, Serral still can win those games? Better than having Inno starting with 1-0 or Serral having to win the Grand final (bo7) and then another match?
And you mention "variable" - I point out that having a random draw is variable already as some players have a preferred matchup, maps, etc.
Seems like a lot of people have their own view or fairness and try to apply it without explaining which part it is that they are referring to. That doesn't work well when communicating with people that have a different view.
Is it fair that everyone is following the same rules? If so, then there is nothing to complain about.
Should we adhere to literal meanings of words? Double eliminatiin means that you need to lose twice to be out of the tournament. There needs to be a second set played if the winner's bracket finalist loses in the finals. Also, we need to complain about the tie rules in best of series since the standard rules is that a map tie leads to a replay of that map. This would mean that the players are playing more games than the "best of" name say that they play. If you dislike that DE isn't taken literally, why aren't you equally upset that BO isn't taken literally? In order to be fair, you also need to be consistent.
Should the rules affect everybody equally? The invited players had an advantage before the tournament started. The seeding system also works on things that happened before the tournament. Is that fair? At least winning all games until the grand finals gives advantage based on results in this tournament - et less fatigue, fewer strategies shown, time to prepare while the "semi finalists" are playing.
A tournament is a time efficient and entertaining way of showing great athletes. However, it is not a great way of determining who is best. The results lack validity and reliability because the sample size is too small and most factors are not even included. The athletes are only showing their skills vs a small set of opponents instead of vs everyone, and they have very limited amount of tries to show their skills. If you are using fairness to mean that the best player should win, another format is required.
We have people saying that some players dislike advantages and others disliking a lack of advantages, so fairness for the well being of the players' mind is not applicable as it is subjective.
I can find no way for fairness to mean that the winner's bracket finalist should get another advantage than being included in the double elimination rule, excluding if other tournaments should also be heavily criticized for their unfairness. Anyrhing else is arbitrary and is not part of "fairness".
Are you even arguing fairness?
Remember that this is showbiz. This is not necessary for survival, this is not educational, this is not producing anything lasting. This is purely for joy in the moment.
On May 14 2020 22:50 Drfilip wrote: Seems like a lot of people have their own view or fairness and try to apply it without explaining which part it is that they are referring to. That doesn't work well when communicating with people that have a different view.
Is it fair that everyone is following the same rules? If so, then there is nothing to complain about.
Should we adhere to literal meanings of words? Double eliminatiin means that you need to lose twice to be out of the tournament. There needs to be a second set played if the winner's bracket finalist loses in the finals. Also, we need to complain about the tie rules in best of series since the standard rules is that a map tie leads to a replay of that map. This would mean that the players are playing more games than the "best of" name say that they play. If you dislike that DE isn't taken literally, why aren't you equally upset that BO isn't taken literally? In order to be fair, you also need to be consistent.
Should the rules affect everybody equally? The invited players had an advantage before the tournament started. The seeding system also works on things that happened before the tournament. Is that fair? At least winning all games until the grand finals gives advantage based on results in this tournament - et less fatigue, fewer strategies shown, time to prepare while the "semi finalists" are playing.
A tournament is a time efficient and entertaining way of showing great athletes. However, it is not a great way of determining who is best. The results lack validity and reliability because the sample size is too small and most factors are not even included. The athletes are only showing their skills vs a small set of opponents instead of vs everyone, and they have very limited amount of tries to show their skills. If you are using fairness to mean that the best player should win, another format is required.
We have people saying that some players dislike advantages and others disliking a lack of advantages, so fairness for the well being of the players' mind is not applicable as it is subjective.
I can find no way for fairness to mean that the winner's bracket finalist should get another advantage than being included in the double elimination rule, excluding if other tournaments should also be heavily criticized for their unfairness. Anyrhing else is arbitrary and is not part of "fairness".
Are you even arguing fairness?
Remember that this is showbiz. This is not necessary for survival, this is not educational, this is not producing anything lasting. This is purely for joy in the moment.
Then who cares about competition integrity, this is just "showbiz".
On May 14 2020 22:50 Drfilip wrote: Seems like a lot of people have their own view or fairness and try to apply it without explaining which part it is that they are referring to. That doesn't work well when communicating with people that have a different view.
Is it fair that everyone is following the same rules? If so, then there is nothing to complain about.
Should we adhere to literal meanings of words? Double eliminatiin means that you need to lose twice to be out of the tournament. There needs to be a second set played if the winner's bracket finalist loses in the finals. Also, we need to complain about the tie rules in best of series since the standard rules is that a map tie leads to a replay of that map. This would mean that the players are playing more games than the "best of" name say that they play. If you dislike that DE isn't taken literally, why aren't you equally upset that BO isn't taken literally? In order to be fair, you also need to be consistent.
Should the rules affect everybody equally? The invited players had an advantage before the tournament started. The seeding system also works on things that happened before the tournament. Is that fair? At least winning all games until the grand finals gives advantage based on results in this tournament - et less fatigue, fewer strategies shown, time to prepare while the "semi finalists" are playing.
A tournament is a time efficient and entertaining way of showing great athletes. However, it is not a great way of determining who is best. The results lack validity and reliability because the sample size is too small and most factors are not even included. The athletes are only showing their skills vs a small set of opponents instead of vs everyone, and they have very limited amount of tries to show their skills. If you are using fairness to mean that the best player should win, another format is required.
We have people saying that some players dislike advantages and others disliking a lack of advantages, so fairness for the well being of the players' mind is not applicable as it is subjective.
I can find no way for fairness to mean that the winner's bracket finalist should get another advantage than being included in the double elimination rule, excluding if other tournaments should also be heavily criticized for their unfairness. Anyrhing else is arbitrary and is not part of "fairness".
Are you even arguing fairness?
Remember that this is showbiz. This is not necessary for survival, this is not educational, this is not producing anything lasting. This is purely for joy in the moment.
Then who cares about competition integrity, this is just "showbiz".
Competitive integrity is integral to this part of show business. We need rules and structure. We need the core, that players are vying for good placememts and try their best -in game, mind you- to win.
I don't understand why you would sidestep that much, going past all that text and get hung up on an semi-related comment at the end. I only included that because I read a lot of comments about making things so that players get equal opportunity or to make the best player win and other stuff in the same general spirit, neglecting that they had biased views as consumers and their personal tastes. These were arguments that put on a mirage of logic.
On May 14 2020 22:50 Drfilip wrote: Seems like a lot of people have their own view or fairness and try to apply it without explaining which part it is that they are referring to. That doesn't work well when communicating with people that have a different view.
Is it fair that everyone is following the same rules? If so, then there is nothing to complain about.
Should we adhere to literal meanings of words? Double eliminatiin means that you need to lose twice to be out of the tournament. There needs to be a second set played if the winner's bracket finalist loses in the finals. Also, we need to complain about the tie rules in best of series since the standard rules is that a map tie leads to a replay of that map. This would mean that the players are playing more games than the "best of" name say that they play. If you dislike that DE isn't taken literally, why aren't you equally upset that BO isn't taken literally? In order to be fair, you also need to be consistent.
Should the rules affect everybody equally? The invited players had an advantage before the tournament started. The seeding system also works on things that happened before the tournament. Is that fair? At least winning all games until the grand finals gives advantage based on results in this tournament - et less fatigue, fewer strategies shown, time to prepare while the "semi finalists" are playing.
A tournament is a time efficient and entertaining way of showing great athletes. However, it is not a great way of determining who is best. The results lack validity and reliability because the sample size is too small and most factors are not even included. The athletes are only showing their skills vs a small set of opponents instead of vs everyone, and they have very limited amount of tries to show their skills. If you are using fairness to mean that the best player should win, another format is required.
We have people saying that some players dislike advantages and others disliking a lack of advantages, so fairness for the well being of the players' mind is not applicable as it is subjective.
I can find no way for fairness to mean that the winner's bracket finalist should get another advantage than being included in the double elimination rule, excluding if other tournaments should also be heavily criticized for their unfairness. Anyrhing else is arbitrary and is not part of "fairness".
Are you even arguing fairness?
Remember that this is showbiz. This is not necessary for survival, this is not educational, this is not producing anything lasting. This is purely for joy in the moment.
From what I understand of what you're saying, you believe that the viewer experience or "showbiz" is the most important aspect of a tournament. From your post, I couldn't determine what you believe to be the "correct" solution - my reading of your post seem to indicate that you believe the Grand Final current rules is the best solution (bo7 finals without any advantage whatsoever).
However, if you follow some of the ideas out there (including mine), where we suggested giving the Winner Bracket a map pick advantage. I argue that a map pick advantage won't detract much (if at all) from the viewer experience.
I'm sure there are other good ideas out there as well where the Winner Bracket can be given some kind of advantage without affecting the "showbiz".
This lies my point, we should be trying to work out such ideas rather than debate fairness vs showbiz.
will there be a designated server for cross server play? such as europeans vs koreans? NA West? Central? Also can anyone link me to the rules for this event?
Also is loser round 1 still Bo3 or Bo5? The official bracket and the prediction thread have all the losers' rounds as Bo5, but the description here says Bo3