[PiG]

Originally Posted by TABiggun

With the whole double elim thing, why can't there just be double elimination and then the finals be a best of 5 or best of 7 instead of 2 best of 3s. This way there would still be a lot of games to determine who's the better player and the player from the loser's bracket would not be at a severe disadvantage.

Some might say "if you stay in the winner bracket you should have an advantage because you never lost" but if someone has fought hard through the lower bracket and played a ton of games and beaten a ton of good players to make their way into the finals then the least they can get now is a fair match instead of having to win 2 best of 3s.

A best of 5 or 7 would be much better for the fans because it would be more exciting and also much better for the player coming from the lower bracket. The only thing the 2 best of 3s rules is better for is the player coming from the winner bracket, noone else.

Being tired is an unmeasurable factor that applies more to some people than others.

Losing a set is losing a set.

If I beat mafia or light 2-0 in the upper finals and then have to beat them from scratch in a bo5 or bo7 in the grand finals I would be pretty mad because I know either of those two is hardly affected by tiredness. This system is completely unjustifiable because losing a set and then getting a second chance is not counteracted by the potential for tiredness to possibly affect someone's play.

I can see how it would balance out somewhat but the fact is it would vary hugely from player to player and overall would just be unfair to the player who gets eliminated after losing 1 set in the finals. Meanwhile the winner also lost 1 set but he got a second chance and then "cancelled out" his earlier loss by playing more games and hence being "tired".

Summary: i don't like that suggestion.

[TABiggun]

Originally Posted by PiG

Being tired is an unmeasurable factor that applies more to some people than others.

Losing a set is losing a set.

If I beat mafia or light 2-0 in the upper finals and then have to beat them from scratch in a bo5 or bo7 in the grand finals I would be pretty mad because I know either of those two is hardly affected by tiredness. This system is completely unjustifiable because losing a set and then getting a second chance is not counteracted by the potential for tiredness to possibly affect someone's play.

I can see how it would balance out somewhat but the fact is it would vary hugely from player to player and overall would just be unfair to the player who gets eliminated after losing 1 set in the finals. Meanwhile the winner also lost 1 set but he got a second chance and then "cancelled out" his earlier loss by playing more games and hence being "tired".

Summary: i don't like that suggestion.

Firstly, I just want to add that I think groups into single elim is probs the best format. Anyway, in response to your post:

Once you have beaten someone in a bo3 earlier in the tournament I can understand why you would want to have an advantage over them --> because you already beat them.

So, why not resume from the previous score and play out a best of 7 instead of doing two bo3s?
eg. Pig beats mafia 2 - 1, and they later meet in the finals. Now the score is still 2 - 1 but they play a bo7 (first to 4 with pig up 2 - 1).

Even though its similar to two bo3s, I just think it makes more sense than just two bo3s if the winners bracket player loses. The winners bracket player still has the advantage from the previous games they played but the advantage is not as big as 2 bo3s (i think). I'm not sure but two bo3s might be the same as bo7 extended series but my brain hurts right now so i just dont want to think about it anymore.

Anyway, I think this is a good beginning of a discussion because tournament format is important.

Quick Comments

	Dox:	STOP DERAILING THE THREAD trolololooll
	Zealo:	you have to be trolling