|
Recently I've seen a lot of finals in double elimination tournaments, namely the Blizzard Invitationals, MLG, and the IPL2. While the system is good for players and the tournament itself, I find the finals to be less exiting. Much of that has to do with the fact that most finals so far has ended in 2 games. The system is set up so that the player from the winners bracket only have to win one Best Of (3-5), while the player coming from the losers bracket has to win two. The harsh reality is, the player from the Winners bracket has a 50% chance to face up with the same guy he beat in the Winners finals, which makes him the clear favorite from the get-go, in addition to his huge advantage, only having to win 1 best of whatever.
I'm not saying the system isn't fair, the guy from the winners bracket has so far been the best player, and he deserves a headstart, but I do think the head start he gets in these tournaments is over the top. What I would suggest is the big tournaments having a normal best of 7 for finals, where the guy from the winners bracket leads 1-0 when entering game 1.
What do you, TL'ers, think about this? Are the finals fine the way they are or would the entertainment value of a semi-regular best of 7 surpass it? Or do you perhaps have other suggestions as to how the finals would make it the more clear highlight of the tournament.
Poll: How should the finals of double-elimination tournaments be set up?Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game. (264) 44% It is fine the way it is. (236) 39% Regular bo7-9 with no advantage for the player in the winners bracket. (84) 14% None of the above (please share your immaculate suggestion in the comment section). (18) 3% 602 total votes Your vote: How should the finals of double-elimination tournaments be set up? (Vote): It is fine the way it is.
(Vote): Make it a bo7-9 with the player from winners bracket up one game.
(Vote): Regular bo7-9 with no advantage for the player in the winners bracket.
(Vote): None of the above (please share your immaculate suggestion in the comment section).
|
the guy in the winners bracket has already beaten the previous guy 2-1 or 2-0 and deservers the upper hand, just like the guy in the losers bracket got an extra life and fought all the way to the finals , in the end the better player will win and there's nothing wrong with double elim
|
100% agreed. While it is completely fair their is nothing better than watching the NASL finals or the GSL2 finals where the series is ridiculously close and comes down to the last game, and the players have split games.
I would say the up 1-0 in a Bo7 would be the best compromise between fairness and viewer excitement.
|
I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
|
They really need to do away with BO3 playoffs/finals...
|
I've been thinking about this for the last few days. Did some1 from losers bracket ever win a final ? i can't remember one, but i also don't watch everything. Makes the finals quite underwhelming.
But you gotta see it from the players perspective. 2nd place is really nice in terms of price money..
|
The OP makes it seem like there is the same system for the finals of MLG as for IPL and blizz invitational. That is not true.
The MLG extended series is total bullshit while the 2 bo(x) in ILP and blizz invitational actually make sense.
I have no problem with making it a single bo(x) series with a small advantage (1 game) given to the guy from the winner bracket, as it was done in Takes home story cup for example.
|
I don't see how you could justify reducing the winner's advantage for as nebulous a reason as this. I think if you want to avoid a double-elimination finals you just have to get rid of double-elimination.
|
I agree with the OP, the two bo3 system is fair, but not very exciting for the viewers and giving the player from the winnner's bracket no advantage is more exciting, but unfair. The best compromise is having a bo7 with a 1-0 lead, which is still a significant advantage, but the viewers get at the very least 3 games and usually even more than that.
|
On August 15 2011 23:16 Redox wrote:
The OP makes it seem like there is the same system for the finals of MLG as for IPL and blizz invitational. That is not true.
The MLG extended series is total bullshit while the 2 bo(x) in ILP and blizz invitational actually make sense.
I have no problem with making it a single bo(x) series with a small advantage (1 game) given to the guy from the winner bracket, as it was done in Takes home story cup for example.
So you'd be okay with an MLG extended series "total bullshit", if the first Bo3 went 2-1?
|
I miss voted 
Up 1 game! I like that idea. one game is huge in a series.
|
If the maps are preset I'd say start the match 1-0 but if it's losers pick the guy from the winners bracket should get to pick the first map.
|
On August 15 2011 23:09 red4ce wrote:
I say just a regular BoX with no advantage going to the player from the winner's bracket. Simply not having to go through the loser's bracket is enough of an advantage already.
What? Do you realize that if the person from the upper bracket loses that BoX, he loses the tournament whereas the person from the lower bracket lost a game as well, but got a second chance in the lower bracket?
This is why it makes a LOT of sense to have the current format, the person from the upper bracket is simply allowed to lose 1 BoX as well, just like the person from the lower bracket already did before (which threw him into LB in the first place).
|
There has to be an advantage going from the winner's bracket, on the other hand, there is nothing more underwhelming than a BO3 finals. And I don't care how many there are.
Maybe make it BO3 and if the guy from the LB wins, than it's a BO5?
|
I would make it like in beachvolleyball:
Double Elimination until Ro 4 into single elimination (without any advantages)
example:
Link to .pdf
|
The winner's bracket winner would have already won if it was a single elimination. It isn't fair to him that he played so hard to reach the and not have any kind of advantage over the loser's bracket winner. Plus, double elimination means you have to lose twice, so there is nothing wrong with 2 best of X series.
|
in my opinion there is only one fair final: bo7/9 with no advantage for anyone. no extended series, no 1:0 advantage, no double bo3/5s etc..
|
Its not about "having the upper hand" its about set losses in bracket. The person in grand finals from winners bracket has not lost to anyone yet, while the person in losers bracket has. If a bracket is double elimination, a person still in the winners bracket has to lose twice to be knocked out of the tournament and that holds true even in grand finals. The person coming from the losers bracket has already lost 1 set which means he can't lose another one or he will be eliminated.
|
On August 15 2011 22:59 Ballack wrote:
I'm not saying the system isn't fair, the guy from the winners bracket has so far been the best player, and he deserves a headstart, but I do think the head start he gets in these tournaments is over the top. What I would suggest is the big tournaments having a normal best of 7 for finals, where the guy from the winners bracket leads 1-0 when entering game 1.
So you basically mean like in the Homestory Cup?
|
United States2131 Posts
I look at each Match as it's own particular instance. You play to find out who is the beast AT THAT MOMENT. I understand the other way of doing things, because it helps determine the best overall throughout the tournament and prevents someone from winning a final who went down 5-6 over the course of the tournament. That being said, you're never going to have a perfect format for that, and the intensity is ramped up so much when you have it all on the line.
Starcraft just works so much better in a straight up format where no previous advantages can be incurred. Much more intense and exciting.
And the advantage held by the winner bracket player is that they had to play fewer games. That's a fairly significant advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
