- Jul 7, 2011
I think both a monetary and seeding incentive should be enough to motivate the teams to play well. Make the seeding for the later rounds dependent on a team's performance in the group stage. That should encourage an already qualified team to continue to try their best in the last round of the group stage to ensure they are well positioned in the later rounds.This just doesn't work, even if there is some monetary incentive, do you really think the teams will play at the same level if they know they are eliminated or qualified already? For example, why wouldn't Viper and MbL let Gluttony or another third player play if they've already won two series and are assured of getting first place?
I already explained to Nerfox how double elimination tournaments are far more fair than what is offered in this WC2v2 GSL setting. Rules can also be devised so rematches will only occur close to the final stages of the tournament.You do realize that GSL IS a double elimination system, just for 4 teams. In a larger double elimination system teams can match twice as well, but you don't care about that? Your argument when it happens in other systems is that it's different because it's a larger series, but you still think it's unfair when it would happen in a GSL Style:
This is how the current system works since the groups often have big skill disparities. Team B beats Team C and is then told to get stomped by team A while team C is told to stomp team D, then B and C rematch with the same exact setting for all the marbles.
And I'm supposed to pretend that's a true double elimination system? I already linked an actual double elimination bracket and it was nothing like this. Stop comparing the GSL implemented in this WC2v2 and actual double elimination tournaments. They have so little in common it's just ridiculous.
Also I totally disagree with you that GSL is just added for viewer hype and is totally unfair. In Round Robin, if there is a three-way tie the winner can be decided by the performance against the fourth team, who most likely had nothing to play for in the last round, how is that competitive?
Another likely scenario is that the first placed team after two rounds can determine who they want to go through as second place. So how is that competitive?
If you're complaining about GSL that's fine, but at least give an alternative that's more competitive, not one that's the least competitive out of all possible systems.
Round robin isn't perfect, that's why I already suggested there be incentives for all the teams to want to perform well in every round. But maybe it still wouldn't work and a type of GSL system would be better. But at the very least, the deciding rematch should not have the same exact length as the round 1 match. We've already discussed enough why that is very problematic.