EPTReynor defeats Serral to win Douyu Cup 2020 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RDO
Italy60 Posts
| ||
|
Archerylady
277 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it. Because the format is called "double elimination", yet Serral was only eliminated once. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7136 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:20 RDO wrote: I don't understand why people still wants an advantage for the winner's bracket finalist. Lower bracket is a parachute for EVERYONE that the winner finalist happens not to use. It isn't a "reward" for who loses a match that needs to be equalized for the other finalist. And if you win all your matches good on you, you've done well, the lower bracke was there for you too as a parachute, and I don't think you need a reward for not having to use it. It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept. | ||
|
RDO
Italy60 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:24 Archerylady wrote: Because the format is called "double elimination", yet Serral was only eliminated once. So, it's a fairness issue or a nomenclature issue? Because in the first case I think it isn't: everybody has the same chances and the same parachute, even when they end up not using it because they win every game. If it's the second there shouldn't be any problem to rename it as "double elimination (except the finals!)", but I don't think that's really needed. | ||
|
RDO
Italy60 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:38 Luolis wrote: It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept. No, it's not unfair. Until you are in the finals you have the same parachute as the others, and once you are in the finals, no matter who you are, you don't have any parachute. It's all clear as the day before the tournament starts, everybody know and follow the same rules, so there is no unfairness. Not a hard concept. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7136 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:43 RDO wrote: No, it's not unfair. Until you are in the finals you have the same parachute as the others, and once you are in the finals, no matter who you are, you don't have any parachute. It's all clear as the day before the tournament starts, everybody know and follow the same rules, so there is no unfairness. Not a hard concept. Everybody knows it, sure. Doesn't make it any less unfair :D The finals should not be treated as a completely different entity from the rest of the tournament rulewise. A one map advantage is the least the tournament organizer can do. Edit: Your point is that "everybody can use that parachute" but if the dude who came through upper bracket can't use "the parachute" when he hasn't used it yet in the finals, that in itself counters your point. | ||
|
sneakyfox
8216 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:38 Luolis wrote: It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept. On the other hand, the player coming from the LB has worked harder to get there by playing more matches. Which actually matters a lot in weekenders (let's hope we get back there some day). But personally I think the HSC format Bo5 into Bo3 is the best. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7136 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:53 sneakyfox wrote: On the other hand, the player coming from the LB has worked harder to get there by playing more matches. Which actually matters a lot in weekenders (let's hope we get back there some day). But personally I think the HSC format Bo5 into Bo3 is the best. I'm a big fan of how WCS 2012 dealt with double elimination. BO3 but the loser bracket dude needs to win 2 series. I think that is objectively the fairest way to deal with double eli. | ||
|
sneakyfox
8216 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:56 Luolis wrote: I'm a big fan of how WCS 2012 dealt with double elimination. BO3 but the loser bracket dude needs to win 2 series. I think that is objectively the fairest way to deal with double eli. The only thing with that is that if the UB guy wins you can end up with a grand finals that is only two games long. With Bo5 it's at least three (and up to eight). | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:38 Luolis wrote: It's unfair that everyone else gets a chance to lose a series, while if you get to the finals without losing a single series you don't get an advantage. Not a hard concept. Everyone gets a chance to lose a series, even the winner. You said it yourself, a "chance" to lose a series is something everyone has but the winner didn't need to use. I really don't see the problem here, none of you who are complaining about this are also whining about GSL group system which can also be called unfair. You can lose against Maru, win against Bunny and come back to meet Maru and lose again. While Patience won against Bunny and against Maru, a player you surely would have beaten yet you never got to face him and still you are knocked out. GSL groups are way more unfair and luck reliant than this. The double elimination bracket is the best way to most reliably get the overall best players into the finals, it removes some of the freak upset potential or the chance for one player to get a lucky streak of just playing his best matchup. It also gives us more games to watch, double elimination really only has upsides there are no downsides. Edit: For example of this look at Traps run, he started in the losers bracket and almost went to the losers finals. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7136 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:59 sneakyfox wrote: The only thing with that is that if the UB guy wins you can end up with a grand finals that is only two games long. With Bo5 it's at least three (and up to eight). True. I think the HSC format is the best for excitement. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7136 Posts
On August 15 2020 19:00 Shuffleblade wrote: Everyone gets a chance to lose a series, even the winner. You said it yourself, a "chance" to lose a series is something everyone has but the winner didn't need to use. I really don't see the problem here, none of you who are complaining about this are also whining about GSL group system which can also be called unfair. You can lose against Maru, win against Bunny and come back to meet Maru and lose again. While Patience won against Bunny and against Maru, a player you surely would have beaten yet you never got to face him and still you are knocked out. GSL groups are way more unfair and luck reliant than this. The double elimination bracket is the best way to most reliably get the overall best players into the finals, it removes some of the freak upset potential or the chance for one player to get a lucky streak of just playing his best matchup. It also gives us more games to watch, double elimination really only has upsides there are no downsides. 1. Why does the winner not need to use the "chance" to lose a series in the finals? It's not a separate entity from the tournament. 2. In the GSL format if you play the same guy twice, both of you have lost a series. Therefore, there is no inconsistency. 3. I don't think anyone is arguing against double elimination format. It is the best format for playoffs for sure, but i don't see a reason to not tackle the inconsistency of finals vs rest of the bracket. | ||
|
RDO
Italy60 Posts
On August 15 2020 18:51 Luolis wrote: Everybody knows it, sure. Doesn't make it any less unfair :D The finals should not be treated as a completely different entity from the rest of the tournament rulewise. A one map advantage is the least the tournament organizer can do. Edit: Your point is that "everybody can use that parachute" but if the dude who came through upper bracket can't use "the parachute" when he hasn't used it yet in the finals, that in itself counters your point. No, there's no counter to my point. Fairness is not a matter of preferences. You said it yourself "a chance given to everyone" and that's the epitome of fairness. In the same way, in the finals, that chance is removed "for everyone" as well, which is still the epitome of fairness. And btw, I'm not saying that giving a +1 map or making the finals a double elim too would be unfair. Those rules would still be fair as well, I personally wouldn't like them just because, for me, it would diminish the hype of an "all or nothing" fresh final. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7136 Posts
On August 15 2020 19:23 RDO wrote: No, there's no counter to my point. Fairness is not a matter of preferences. You said it yourself "a chance given to everyone" and that's the epitome of fairness. In the same way, in the finals, that chance is removed "for everyone" as well, which is still the epitome of fairness. And btw, I'm not saying that giving a +1 map or making the finals a double elim too would be unfair. Those rules would still be fair as well, I personally wouldn't like them just because, for me, it would diminish the hype of an "all or nothing" fresh final. But in the finals there is only one player who can have that chance revoked.... As for the hype part, that is the shortcoming of double elimination. If you do it fairly, you get anti-hype. If you do it for hype, you make it unfair. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19288 Posts
| ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On August 15 2020 19:40 BisuDagger wrote: Serral has lost a couple tournament to Reynor this way now. Clearly, Reynor is a bracket strategist and loses tactfully and on purpose so he can have more time to plan his rematch in the finals Reynor's won the mental war with Serral. Serral's macro is unparalled, yet he continues to try and use timing attacks vs reynor. | ||
|
RDO
Italy60 Posts
On August 15 2020 19:29 Luolis wrote: But in the finals there is only one player who can have that chance revoked.... As for the hype part, that is the shortcoming of double elimination. If you do it fairly, you get anti-hype. If you do it for hype, you make it unfair. In the finals there's only one player who gets to play at least one series more than the other finalist, and it still doesn't make it unfair because that player, like the wb finalist, could be any player and the conditions are the same for everybody involved from the beginning. I bet there's no pro that would like to be in the loser's bracket, thinking that the wb is unfair. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7136 Posts
On August 15 2020 19:55 RDO wrote: In the finals there's only one player who gets to play at least one series more than the other finalist, and it still doesn't make it unfair because that player, like the wb finalist, could be any player and the conditions are the same for everybody involved from the beginning. I bet there's no pro that would like to be in the loser's bracket, thinking that the wb is unfair. But that is completely different since it is literally the point of the whole format... Again, the finals are not a completely different entity from the rest of the tournament. You have to be consistent with the rules and if the upper bracket finalist hasn't lost a series yet, the least you can do is to give them a one map advantage (but preferably a double elimination finals obviously). | ||
|
Archerylady
277 Posts
On August 15 2020 19:43 InfCereal wrote: Reynor's won the mental war with Serral. Serral's macro is unparalled, yet he continues to try and use timing attacks vs reynor. Reynor is definitely in Serral's head, and Serral seems to have lost his confidence and that ice cold composure that carried him through 2018. The Dark envy isn't helping either. | ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
"The championship finals of a double elimination tournament is usually set up to be a possible two games (two series in the case of Starcraft). The rationale is that since the tournament is indeed double elimination, it is unfair to have the W Bracket champion eliminated with its first loss. Therefore, while the W Bracket champion needs to beat the L Bracket champion only once to win the tournament, the L Bracket champion must beat the Winners' Bracket champion twice." Therefore, this tournament can't legitimately be called a double elimination tournament, because the loser of the grand final wasn't doubly eliminated. What else to call it, then? How about, simply stupid? Okay, by this logic, even the +1 map advantage is dumb, but at least it's much less dumb. All said, Reynor was clearly the strongest performer in the tournament, according to what we saw. Unfortunately, there was no fair 2nd series in the grand final to nail down, or dispute, this conclusion. | ||
| ||
