EPTSerral wins Maestros of the Game 2 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
cabarkapa
United States1013 Posts
| ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1351 Posts
On July 05 2026 06:56 TeamMamba wrote: The better player won, people just need to deal with it. We don’t need a loser bracket simple. Should just need it simple, group stage —> playoff bracket single elimination It's not that simple. Double-Elim was clearly intended here to provide more games. Just for clarification, in this specific tournament, without Loser Bracket you would have lost SIX Bo7s between the best players in the world. Bo7s btw that all mattered and weren't useless group stage fluff. As I said before: Double-Elim is a great format, it is just hard to get the finals right. "Bo7 into Bo3" is definetly not it though. But I'm biased, I dislike basically all Super-Advantages, except maybe when it is double Bo3 | ||
|
PremoBeats
587 Posts
The grand final into reset-solution imo is anti-climactic and the ridiculous possibility described by Charoisaur is real. Perhaps the solution with 1 game awarded as a free win for the uppet bracket qualifier is a better option? But it is good to know that herO simply forgot in the heat of the moment. This information singles out the option that he only prepared for the Bo7 or had a disadvantage based on any kind of language barrier. Anyway: Great crowd, great tournament. You can't please everyone... that's just how it is. | ||
|
Ch3rry
Poland229 Posts
The rules might be confusing, but I won't call it unfair. Serral lost one series in the play-off bracket, Hero lost two. I would just extend tie-break to Bo5 instead of Bo3. | ||
|
JJH777
United States4420 Posts
| ||
|
kajtarp
Hungary492 Posts
On July 04 2026 03:09 TeamMamba wrote: If that’s the case herO wouldn’t even be in the finals since Serral already eliminated him in the upper bracket The finals would just have been Serral 4-0 Maru I am well aware. Yesterdays homestory cup final was the same. I absolutely hate the double elim format. It removes any kind of upset/surprise potential out of the game. You can prepare amazing builds and surprise the big names as an underdog and all you achieve that you push them down to a loser bracket and they can just study and analyze the shit out of the replays and still win the rematch. It should have been a Serral victory over Maru and the HSC should have been a Clem win over Reynor. Just remember past tournaments with an unexpected winner at the end from the past. Most would have been nullified with the double elim format. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3538 Posts
On July 06 2026 01:51 JJH777 wrote: It's weird that people say double elim groups into a single elim bracket is fine but having a double elim ro4 and a single elim finals isn't. Group Stages are literally just a double elim bracket for the prior round, they are just presented differently but any tournament with double elim groups could be presented as a single bracket too. Meaning a player in the ro16 gets two lives but a player in the ro8 gets one life and no one complains about unfairness. It's just the tournament format. Doing the same with the ro4 -> top 2 could be treated exactly the same. Good point. I always saw double elim as the best way to find the best two players of the tournament, you basically have double the chance, since the winner could have slayed the 2nd best player on his way. But then once you've found your two best contenders to duke it out, you ruin it by adding caveats. But I also just think that our tournaments are so top heavy, or shallow, these days that we should rather want to see more upsets, instead of watching the same few duke it out again and again. That said, this also means that chance plays a bigger role. So, I prefer straight, or double elim with extended series, or double elim. qualifying into the grand finals. | ||
Peeano
Netherlands5739 Posts
| ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1351 Posts
On July 09 2026 15:54 Peeano wrote: I believe BSL fixes this issue by awarding the top bracket winner with 1 win going into the finals. Although the Bo3 seems more fair in allowing the winner to lose one match as well, imo it becomes a "dessert Bo3". Which is easily a hype killer if the main course was already excellent. I know I sound like a grumpy old man that isn't happy with anything, but on most days I think the +1 advantage is even worse than the "Super Advantage". | ||
|
Peeano
Netherlands5739 Posts
On July 10 2026 04:30 Balnazza wrote: I know I sound like a grumpy old man that isn't happy with anything, but on most days I think the +1 advantage is even worse than the "Super Advantage". Which is? The locker bracket finalist playing a regular final vs the winner bracket finalist? | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1351 Posts
On July 10 2026 05:16 Peeano wrote: Which is? The locker bracket finalist playing a regular final vs the winner bracket finalist? Apparently on Liquipedia playing a 2nd BoX is called "Super Advantage" now in WC3...guess I should have used "Bracket Reset" instead. I still think the best version is to just give either no advantage to the UB player or just give him a veto-advantage (like in Valorant). | ||
|
Peeano
Netherlands5739 Posts
| ||
|
Kitai
United States885 Posts
The finals starts out as a Bo7. But if the player from the losers bracket wins the Bo7 the series is extended to a Bo9. That way the winners bracket player still gets an advantage (the opportunity to win sooner and a comeback potential). But nobody gets a free map and the losers bracket player can't go 5-2 map score in the finals and still lose. If someone thinks this is stupid please let me know why since I am slightly inebriated and currently think it's a really good idea | ||
|
Glorfindelio
229 Posts
On July 10 2026 12:14 Kitai wrote: What if... The finals starts out as a Bo7. But if the player from the losers bracket wins the Bo7 the series is extended to a Bo9. That way the winners bracket player still gets an advantage (the opportunity to win sooner and a comeback potential). But nobody gets a free map and the losers bracket player can't go 5-2 map score in the finals and still lose. If someone thinks this is stupid please let me know why since I am slightly inebriated and currently think it's a really good idea Ooo, I actually rather like this! Granted, it's a lot to ask of the players, but more content for the fans regardless. | ||
|
PremoBeats
587 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3538 Posts
I guess it's a slippery slope to wanting every series to be an extended series, if two ppl meet. But then I don't have anything against that. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1351 Posts
On July 10 2026 12:14 Kitai wrote: What if... The finals starts out as a Bo7. But if the player from the losers bracket wins the Bo7 the series is extended to a Bo9. That way the winners bracket player still gets an advantage (the opportunity to win sooner and a comeback potential). But nobody gets a free map and the losers bracket player can't go 5-2 map score in the finals and still lose. If someone thinks this is stupid please let me know why since I am slightly inebriated and currently think it's a really good idea The idea isn't bad. It is in the same vain as what MLG did with their "Extended Series" concept. Basically, every match was a Bo3, but every rematch immediately became a Bo7, but they kept the score from the first series. So if A wins 2:1 against B in the first round and they meet again in the finals, it is a Bo7, but the score starts at 2:1 (and I think the Mapvetos were also kept?) The "bad" thing about your concept, in my opinion, is that it isn't clear form the start what the modi of the Finals are. Of course you can say "the modus is clear, if A loses the Bo7, it becomes a Bo9 instead", but that is, in my feeling, still changing the modus operandi for the Finals DURING the finals. The beauty of the veto idea (and even the one beautfy of the 1:0 leading start) is that all the advantages happen BEFORE the kickoff of the first map. So when the first map starts, everyone is on the same playing field and technically the match is the same for both players. There isn't an "unlock"-moment, were something specific happens and because of that the "rules change", if that makes sense. | ||
|
sc2turtlepants
60 Posts
Hardly seems fair. | ||
|
PremoBeats
587 Posts
But extending the series if the Bo7 is won by the lower bracket finalist seems okish. Agreed, it would force you to play a veto'ed map, but that is probably also true for the opponent, as the last maps to be played in a Bo9 usually would be the first vetos from both sides. | ||
|
sc2turtlepants
60 Posts
//I'm not following Premo, how does whether they met before enter into it? To my understanding the premise is once the double elim playoffs start, all players should have 2 lives. Has nothing to do with whether they met before.// To be honest I do prefer the bo7 -> bo3 format for double elim brackets, I believe it maximizes fairness while keeping the finals from bloating into 12+ maps. However, I would prefer to see more single elim brackets. I think if you want to pad your tournament run time, you should do so in the earlier rounds. It would also allow for more distinct players to win tournaments. We've seen how rare it is for Serral to lose 2 sets in a day. Anyway, congrats to herO, I mean Serral! Man that trophy lift was brutal | ||
| ||
