|
On July 04 2026 03:09 TeamMamba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2026 17:55 kajtarp wrote:
This finals absolutely shows why i hate the double elimination format. 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.
|
Thank you Funka for the reply, you're right, and it was a great tournament.
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.
|
Netherlands5899 Posts
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.
|
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".
|
Netherlands5899 Posts
On July 10 2026 04:30 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +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".
Which is? The locker bracket finalist playing a regular final vs the winner bracket finalist?
|
On July 10 2026 05:16 Peeano wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2026 04:30 Balnazza wrote: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". 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).
|
Netherlands5899 Posts
Map veto-advantage seems like a cool reward without skewing odds too much or killing excitement for the viewers.
|
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
|
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.
|
I think that's a pretty sound proposal...
|
Yeah, I like it, but from bo7 to bo9 is only 1 win difference, so if you come from bo3's or bo5's from the lower's bracket, going from bo7 to bo11, or bo13 makes more sense. Bo9 only makes sense if loser's bracket is bo1 like the rotto weekly.
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.
|
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.
|
Fun idea with the bo9 but the problem I see is map balance. So you go from winning a bo7 to being forced to play on the map you vetoed?
Hardly seems fair.
|
Also, another series can't be taken into the finals, if the two players never met before (like Clem / Serral at HSC).
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.
|
Edit: My bad, I see the other comments you're replying to now. Ignore this bit please:
//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
|
On July 11 2026 02:28 ejozl wrote:
Yeah, I like it, but from bo7 to bo9 is only 1 win difference, so if you come from bo3's or bo5's from the lower's bracket, going from bo7 to bo11, or bo13 makes more sense. Bo9 only makes sense if loser's bracket is bo1 like the rotto weekly.
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.
Yeah I thought about that 1 map difference too, but then I thought a Bo11 or more would be too much to ask of the players and casters, especially with the possibility that they actually have to play 11 maps!
|
There's just something distasteful about this advantage in the finals. Imagine Katowice winner takes all 100k, sOs vs. herO finals, sOs has come from the winners bracket making him the heavy favourite to take home the 100k, and thereby creating less hype. Because of this, he starts the series with a 2-1 adv. in their bo7. Bam! 2 proxy 2-gates in a row, and herO is out, kk thx bye, see you at blizzcon folks.
|
France13018 Posts
League of legends spoiler:
In the most important international LoL tournament besides the world championship, the winner’s bracket team ended up losing in the finals (they beat HLE 3-1 in winner, then lost 2-3 in the grand finals, so HLE could afford to lose a bo5 while the BLG team from winner’s bracket were eliminated after just one, and with a combined 5w-4l record vs HLE).
In the case of LoL, a bracket reset is probably not feasible because a bo5 can last around 5 hours (breaks included), even another bo3 would be far too long. But no advantage can feel very unfair
For sc2 I think bo3 after bracket reset is fine, or 1 map advantage. Double bo7 is probably far too long.
Complicated issue though, because scheduling can become a nightmare with bracket reset
|
On July 14 2026 03:32 Poopi wrote:
League of legends spoiler:
In the most important international LoL tournament besides the world championship, the winner’s bracket team ended up losing in the finals (they beat HLE 3-1 in winner, then lost 2-3 in the grand finals, so HLE could afford to lose a bo5 while the BLG team from winner’s bracket were eliminated after just one, and with a combined 5w-4l record vs HLE).
In the case of LoL, a bracket reset is probably not feasible because a bo5 can last around 5 hours (breaks included), even another bo3 would be far too long. But no advantage can feel very unfair
For sc2 I think bo3 after bracket reset is fine, or 1 map advantage. Double bo7 is probably far too long.
Complicated issue though, because scheduling can become a nightmare with bracket reset
But as with most things, it is all about adaptation. In LoL, internationally Double-Elim is relatively new, but it is pretty standard in a lot of seasons. So the fans and players are used to not getting any advantages except for an extra day of preparation. And I think it is the same in DotA 2 with the TI, isn't it?
There are of course always voices and comments, but I don't think the "missing" advantage in the Finals has ever been a big concern in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
