Complain about the unfair setting at Final

ArgentinaNicov

Two handed swordman
Apr 27, 2012
1,258
996
118
26
Voobly
Nicov
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
2565
Wins
545
Losses
249
Streak
6
#51
The double elimination format sucks for LAN events, I must agree there. And I see no way to fix it other than making the WB winner start 1-0 (still not good, but at least better than giving a free HM).

What I don't understand is the lack of fairness for the winner of the WB in online tournaments. Adding 2 games is pretty much a joke. It should be a new bo5 set.
 

Czech RepublicCZ_Mango

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2013
389
337
68
28
Prague
Voobly
CZ_Mango
View profile
Ladder
RM - Team Games
Rating
1975
Wins
482
Losses
298
Streak
3
#52
...Loser bracket lacked behind heavily which ended up delaying the games for the WB finalist for weeks. It definately isn't optimal situation for having the WB winner wait for weeks, even over a month when the LB finalist plays it the next week. NC finals showed us that the long almost 2month (abit more for FIN) definately had an effect on both teams performance; neither of the teams played at their peak performance in the tournament.
I think Jupe nailed one maybe even bigger issue with this type of format. If the winner of WB has to wait that long for the finals he will eventually lose the top form and gets a bit out of shape. Of course they can play practise games but it will never be the same like the heat of LB matches for the winner of LB. The question is what can be done about that? Maybe postpone the WB rounds a bit so they level with the LB rounds and so LB don't fall that much behind? Some extra small prize money for the winner of WB in combination with 1-0 lead in the Grand final also sounds reasonable.

Let me show you some parallel. My favourite wintersport is ski-jumping. The system in a basic race is two rounds of jumps when you add the lengths of jumps together. So even if you had a bad luck in first round and your jump wasnt the best (lets say you lost somewhere in the double elimination) you can still win the race by excelling in the second round (lets say winning in the grand final). The difference is you have to perform way better in the second round and put some extra energy to actually win the whole race. (lets say winning the finals even though you are starting with 0-1 score). Also the winner of qualification in ski-jumping gets an extra prize money. (lets say winner of the WB in our situation but it could also be applied to winners of groups)
 

United Statespatao

Well Known Pikeman
Apr 2, 2016
396
302
78
#53
So basically what I'm taking away from this thread is that we can't possibly have a fair LAN final because the sponsors don't want a single elimination tournament and there are time constraints for a possible two-part final. And tbh I think that's bullshit.
Pretty harsh takeaway, what I takeaway is that people have various opinions on what's "fair" because there's not really a right answer. And some opinions on a fair solution are more practical than others, so we do that.

FWIW I basically agree with Black Adder's assessment, I thought it was really good.

It's way easier to just win your way through the WB and you even get a bonus in the final series. The team that drops to LB has to play and win an additional series against a top team, and has a disadvantage in the final. Hardly unfair. I also think giving a 1-point advantage and extending the final is a fair solution as well.
 

United StatesJoshuaR

Known Member
Oct 11, 2013
282
159
58
#54
I personally would prefer single elimination in fairness' sake, or at least single elimination for the final stage, but I think this tournament did its best to balance the disadvantage the WB team has in that the loser had to go through the extra match/es in the loser bracket, and did face an additional home map.

It's a bit silly to have a final where one team can win in BoX series... but if they lose, everyone has to stick around for another series. Better drama and entertainment in a final with clear cut rules and timelines equal to each side.

Let's take the analogy to sports: for example the recent baseball world series. Arizona and Colorado were "losers" and had to enter the playoffs via a single elimination wild card game, and immediately afterward had to face the top division winner (the Dodgers), usually after having spent their best pitcher. It's very possible and happens frequently that these wild card teams, perhaps with a much weaker record, beat the division winner, and there's no extra series in case that division winner loses, but the division winner has the advantage of playing at home, having more rest before the game, not having to play that first single elimination round, and having their best pitcher available to start.

This sort of advantage seems analogous to the WB team having the extra home map, and the question might be whether that's "enough," as others have said, and whether maybe they deserve a free win or something more. But I do disagree that having an extra match after the match is over is just awkward and takes away from the excitement of that first match.
 

AustraliaSocksyy

Halberdier
Nov 6, 2013
1,092
272
98
21
Australia
Voobly
Socksyy
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
2031
Wins
661
Losses
808
Streak
1
#55
imo having two series instead of one increases the hype, not descreases it. You know that the team coming from loser bracket will have to win two series in a row, whereas the team from the winner bracket has to only secure one win, the stakes get higher as the match draws on.
Will the winner bracket team lose their nerve if they lose the first series, will they pull it together? as for the loser bracket team, will they possible be able to take the win even if they are currently down in the first series ?
 
Apr 2, 2016
394
0
0
#56
lets play like this:
if the LB team wins the 1st series, a 2nd series is required;
if the WB team wins the 2nd series, a 3rd series is required;
repeat until one team wins 2 series in a row
that should be convincing
 

MexicoLarreser

Active Member
Mar 13, 2010
779
29
43
22
Mexico
Voobly
VN_KratoS
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
1886
Wins
95
Losses
82
Streak
3
#57
For me the best option is make it bo7 like this time and if the Lb winner gets 4 wins first make it bo9 or bo11

If the wb winner gets 4 wins first they win the tournament
 
Sep 4, 2017
14
24
18
Voobly
ghostofyoda
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
1394
Wins
22
Losses
31
Streak
3
#59
Formally equivalent to having the winner start 1-0 (but maybe psychologically different?) would be to play a BO of some even number (e.g. BO6), but have the winners bracket win in case of a tie.
 
Mar 20, 2015
1,177
960
128
26
England
youtube.com
#60
Formally equivalent to having the winner start 1-0 (but maybe psychologically different?) would be to play a BO of some even number (e.g. BO6), but have the winners bracket win in case of a tie.
Ultimately the outcome is the same, but most seem to agree that the winners bracket team needs some larger advantage in the final than just a HM pick. I agree with this too, but only in the case of a Bo5/7 final. Anything higher than that and it feels unnecessary to give any advantage.
 

UnknownBlack Adder

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
730
310
73
Praha, Czech Republic
www.rts-league.org
#61
When you think about it, with performance-seeded "Best of" series Double Elimination is always kind of superfluous. It's meant for situations where a participant would be eliminated after playing just 1 game really, and with random seedings - in cases like here, we have set seeds based on previous games, so the situation of two favourites playing each other too early shouldn't be happening (which is what DE is supposed to fix), and "Best ofs" should take care of randomness even further.

I've read up on it a bit and you could also set it up in a way that the LB would determine only the third team, WB Finals would be true Finals for 1st and 2nd (potentially could decide even the 2nd spot, but 3rd seems better time/schedule-wise).
 

Indiak_the_foodie

Known Member
Apr 24, 2014
253
101
48
Voobly
k_the_foodie
View profile
Ladder
RM - 1v1
Rating
1649
Wins
442
Losses
475
Streak
1
#62
I think winners bracket finalist should start with 1 point. And then there should be even number of games (say 8). Then only way for loser bracket finalist to win is to score 5-3 or better. Which means they beat winners bracket finalist convincingly and deserve the victory.
 

Time

Your time
G M T
Your zone

Upcoming Events

Improvement Cup 3v3 LB Semifinal
Wednesday 20:30 (GMT +01:00)
Peter sings a song vs Lunacy
ECL SE Asia 1v1 JorDan vs Tim
Friday 12:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL SE Asia 1v1 JorDan vs Tim
Improvement Cup 4v4 WB Final
Saturday 11:30 (GMT +01:00)
new Chapter vs Australia
ECL SE Asia 1v1 Villese vs St4rk
Saturday 13:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL SE Asia 1v1 Villese vs St4rk
ECL South East Asia 1v1 Ro16
Saturday 15:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL South East Asia 1v1 Ro16
Improvement Cup 3v3 WB Final
Sunday 02:00 (GMT +01:00)
CSPD vs Australia D
ECL South East Asia 1v1 Ro16
Sunday 15:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL South East Asia 1v1 Ro16
ECL SE Asia 1v1 TaToH vs ReallyDiao
Tuesday 14:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL SE Asia 1v1 TaToH vs ReallyDiao
ECL SE Asia 1v1 MbL vs yinghua
Wednesday 15:00 (GMT +01:00)
ECL SE Asia 1v1 MbL vs yinghua
King of the Plebs 2
March 7th 17:00 (GMT +01:00)
RO16 1400-1700 ELO Tournament

Age Of Empires On Twitch

There are in total 30 streamers online
Click here for details
Age of Empires II 1029 viewers
Age of Empires II 305 viewers
Age of Empires II 38 viewers
Age of Empires III: The Asian Dynasties 32 viewers
Age of Empires II 17 viewers
Top