Single Elimination Best of 3 is better
Posted 23 August 2011 - 04:31 AM
The advantages of the double elimination best of 1 systems is frankly, ONLY extending the prize pool and rankings down to 8th place (or even 16th place as was at e-Stars), so the bad teams and their fans are willing to attend and spectate the event, even though they have no idea where they might finish. Now this was wonderful for SMM 2008, because Malaysia is broken up into states, and they also want international teams to travel in for SMM, all on their own sponsorship, or pocket money. And back in 2008 having an international LAN was quite a rare and important even.
Double elimination by no means takes less time. Only the winners are playing less games but we are sitting through the losers playing endless games. ASUS was 16 teams and that took all of two day. SMM and The International were 3 and 5. It is quite unheard of for a CS or Quake tournament in their prime days to have less than 32 teams but they never took longer than a weekend. Why did The International take so long? Because we were watching a ton of bad games.
But times have changed. There is no need to extend the prizes to the lower places or to worry who is in 2nd or 3rd places because there are so many tournaments happening so frequently now that a good team or the underdogs will just bounce back for the next one. It would be much more entertaining playing out best of 3 matches between the better teams than watching the losers play best of 1 against everyone and his underdog. In other words instead of biting your nails over who is 5th place, you get much more 1st place matches and those are the better teams anyway.
But now to the point, why is there a backlash against this shift in other communities such as CS? Because it makes for bad tournaments. It makes the players and spectators unhappy. We are stuck watching the bad teams in Bo1 pick-decides-the-win games. For those teams who have been professional for 10 years and seen both systems, such as FX, SK, Fnatic, it's very simple. It's way too random. So we may award prizes to those who finished 4th 5th 6th and 7th, but it often is the case that those teams are not in fact deserving of their place or their prizes. The double elimination system saves teams from one unlucky defeat yes, but because of best of 1, it is quite easy to be unlucky twice and get knocked out early as well. Best of 3 single elimination guarantees teams are able to respond to surprises, to be creative, and to show their full potential, and do it against the team they lost the first game against. In other words, luck is far more controlling in best of 1 than best of 3, in which the better team on that day is the true winner.
Teams do not show up to make enough for their trip anymore, they are not happy to get 5th or 8th no matter what the prize is, and in fact spectators and even an underdog team have much more interest when the difference between 1st and 2nd is not 13000 and 11000 (e-Stars). Yes more prizes is good, but put it at stake and award it to the best. The teams have ample opportunity to earn sponsors now.
Some player thoughts: Warning spoiler alert.
HLTV.org - News: Video: ceh9 talks about day one 5:40
(Also talks about Navi Dota 3:15)
HLTV.org - News: Video: TaZ on day two performance 3:50
HLTV.org - News: Video: Neo talks e-Stars victory 3:15
Posted 23 August 2011 - 04:53 AM
Group stage could be used to "seed" teams into the playoffs, but even then there is possibility for problems and bo3 group stage isn't gonna happen.
Simply put, the double elimination format is the fairest for all teams in the sense that you aren't out of the tourney early just cause you vs the top team when your team should go much further.
Bo3 double elimination.. Now there's a possibility
Posted 23 August 2011 - 05:20 AM
Don't forget about the time as well, single elimination BO3 takes longer than winner/loser bracket BO1 system.
16 teams using BO3 single elimination system will amount to 45-48 games on worst case scenario (all matchup take 3 games). whereas if you use double elimination BO1 (just like the international) you will only need somewhere around 20-30 games, depending on how many games you want on the final (grand, winner, or loser)
On E-sport this matter a lot, as most event will only be held for few days.
Just a few months ago I was also facing this problem, whether to choose single elimination or double elimination on DotA tournament that I organized on my university. Due to the limited time I've given, double elimination is still the best choice. Choosing single elimination BO1 is absolutely a no-no as luck becoming too important rather than skills/strategy while single elimination BO3 would take too much time.
Posted 23 August 2011 - 05:34 AM
Posted 23 August 2011 - 05:50 AM
Posted 23 August 2011 - 06:29 AM
Seeing more games from loser bracket has nothing to do with single vs. double elimination. It has all to do with the fact that Valve decided to do BO3 one round earlier in loser bracket. Only one round did Navi have to wait for an opponent, the loser finals. So double elim is only one round slower then single elim, which is about as fast as you can get.
2011-08-23 05:31, ngazi wrote:
Why are we watching more of Ehome than Navi, who is the better team? In double elimination we are always watching the bad teams struggle against each other just to survive, while the good teams sit on the sidelines.
The difference when two top teams meet early is getting 1st and 2nd, or getting 1st and other not even placing.
It doesn't matter if Navi and Ehome faced each other early or late, it would have been best of 3.
Posted 23 August 2011 - 09:30 AM
EDIT: OP you are totally wrong, with double elimination you get the most accurate rankings and that's what everyone wants.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users