The Double Elimination Debate
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2024
- Get Surfshark VPN at surfshark.deals/gbay99 and enter promo code Gbay99 for 83% off and 3 extra months for free!
The League of Legends Esports community has seemingly forever debated whether we should add double elimination to Worlds. Here at Worlds 2021 the idea has popped up once again with the few quality international series we're getting to see. I think an IPL5 style bracket might work in theory... but double elim on its own poses a threat to exposing one of LoL's biggest weaknesses as an esport.
▶ TWEETS - / gbay99
▶ PATREON - / gbay99
▶ SPONSORS - gbay99@inf1uence.com
▶ PERSONAL CONTACT - gbay99.business@gmail.com
0:00 - INTRO
3:22 - Part 1: Problems with Worlds
11:58 - Part 2: LoL's Sport Failings
17:49 - Part 3: Why I'm skeptical of Double Elim
#LeagueOfLegends #lolesports #Worlds2021 - Hry
Made a video on the second channel discussing these types of videos: czcams.com/video/YNZLTujQX-4/video.html&ab_channel=Gbay100
Personally I agree with the guy at 2:15, he seems smart
seems like he would make some really good videos about off meta stuff if he ever tried it
At first something felt a bit out of place, but then he started moving his hands and then it started looking normal xD
I still miss the shirts tho
It really helps the Italian viewers follow along
@@snozeberry99 good one
a team upsetting a favorite and making the favorite do the losers bracket run is more enjoyable to me than them being gone and the team that upset them just getting smashed in the next series
bad take
@@ivailoivanov01 how lol
hard agree with you
If the better team just runs the losers bracket and the worse team that upset them gets smashed next round, drops to losers, and gets smashed again, at the end of the day it feels like the upset never happened. Double elim basically just undoes upsets, which is another way of saying there are no upsets.
Was this current worlds better because Funplus was eliminated in groups? Yes. Was last year's worlds more fun because TSM got to make the miracle run and then go 0-6 at worlds? No.
I left feeling affirmed in my opinion that double elimination would be good but I respect your opinion and give you huge props for framing the opposing view fairly
While I can see merit to your arguments, having Worlds and TI (dota2 equivalent) at the same time this year really shifted me towards the double elimination camp. Not only does it allow for more games to watch for the viewers, it also allows for more series to be played in a day (worlds are boring as fuck with 1 series a day after groups) and more teams to advances at each stages, it also allows the meta to evolve more during the tournament and truly separates the good from the greats (TI was won by an underdog team that had to go through all the tournament favorites in the lower bracket to win it all).
Yeah I think TI held at the same time really exposed the cracks in Worlds format like never before. Also TI broke the viewership record so it dispels the idea that double elim isn't good for viewership. It's actually the opposite, single elim can hurt the viewership when the grandfinals is a boring stomp.
The meta would still not evolve even with double elimination. Watch the interview that LS just did with Fudge. The problem of the meta not evolving during Worlds is that teams slowly begin to copy whatever is popular in Korea. Instead of sticking to whatever worked in their region, pro League teams have the mindset that "whatever champs/items Korea is using is best," which is not necessarily true. The problem of meta evolution, at the moment, is the mindset of our pro teams rather than the tournament style.
But I do agree that the current format is boring past group stage. I just don't think that double elimination is going to solve that issue.
How does DOTA have so much international parity between western and easter regions? The multiple international tournaments during the year keep teams at the same level? I doubt it's infrastructure at this time and age.
Regional leagues are what hurts League the most?
@@jonathanclark3754 well it's also a different patch so most of what they worked on is dead. And also we've seen metas evolve within worlds already (MF support S6) and thats in a very short tournament. Double Elim gives you more time for picks on that patch to be discovered. On top of that double Elim leaves more teams to potentially scrim since that's a pretty consistent problem at world's after the first round of elimination bracket.
@@panchorosselli Yeah, I've heard that argument before, but Riot is not going to actually add more international tournaments. The discussion is on adding a double elimination bracket to one tournament (Worlds), which Riot is obviously considering. My argument is that adding a double elimination bracket at this point in time will not cause meta diversity. Again, the problem lies in the "mindset" of the teams.
To counteract your argument I feel like even with double elim, having an upset in BO5 does matter. Seeing G2 beat RNG in a bo5 matters even though RNG is not directly eliminated. It reshuffles expectations, changes narratives, brings enormous hype around a rematch, etc. Other esports showed it (just look at TI or smash bros) : an upset in winner's bracket is hype, a team or a player ranking higher than expected is hype. In fact here is another good thing about double elim : teams rankings are more accurate, which means that progressing through the bracket is important in itself, as you progress through rankings. And even though you might lose some hype for matches on winner's bracket, you get huge hype boost for loser's runs. You can see teams adapt, you can even see more upsets (for instance : MAD lose to DK but then proceed to have a good loser's run against other korean/chinese teams. I mean it is far more hype than what we got). Besides, it would enable to put 3rd seeds from groups in loser brackets, allowing for good comeback stories and even better loser runs. And obviously it increases the chance of a good grand final (you could even make it a bo7 with a game advantage for the team coming from winner's). I really feel like looking at other esports and domestic leagues proved that double elim doesn't create worthless matches or upsets, but just gives us more games, better matches and a clear cut ranking of best teams in the tournament.
That RNG vs G2 Esports quarterfinal was unbelievable to watch for me, it was incredible. One of the downsides of a massive upset like that, though, is how we remember the tournament afterwards. We look at the scoreboard and see KT Rolster and RNG in the "5th to 8th"' category, and G2 and Cloud9 in the "3rd to 4th" category. That sucks for the history of the game in my opinion, because that is not representative of how good those teams actually were. The results would tell you that Cloud9 was a better team than KT Rolster, when anyone who watched the tournament would be able to tell you that that wasn't the case at all. Another example would be Worlds 2016, where the results page would have you believe that H2K was on the same level as ROX Tigers.
Upsets are fun and exciting, but it sucks to see truly great teams robbed of the opportunity to strive for the accolades they deserve and to be remembered as great teams. The ambiguity, in my opinion, is a bad thing. How often is the team that wins Worlds actually the best team in the World all year, or even close to it? Take 2017 for example, where Samsung Galaxy won Worlds. No one in their right mind who watched all of 2017 would tell you Samsung Galaxy was the best team of that year. Nor would they say that about Invictus Gaming in 2018, or FPX in 2019. The randomness that the format of Worlds (and not to mention the meta shifts) introduce heavily skew our perception of which teams are most deserving of our praise.
Yeah i would love to see double elim in worlds would be awesome!!! So fun!! And then final bo7
@@ThornyMcPoop You do know that FPX finished both LPL regular split in first place and won the Summer playoffs? What ranking would you give 2019 FPX among the teams present at Worlds 2019? I am really curious.
I mean thats why gbay said if keeping everything same but just adding double elim itd be weird, sure if groups got changed around and maybe up to a certain points its bo3 instead of all bo5 then double elim works better. But with the current system, double elim just kinda doesn't work as well
@@ThornyMcPoop I mean the upsets and crazy runs in single elims are what make sports exciting. There's a reason why everyone remembers the giants upsetting the patriots and the seahawks beating the saints when they were 7-9 in regular season. Hell HLE getting out of groups when they were awful this last split was crazy to watch. Having weird upsets and breakthroughs is way more important. I think in general worlds format needs to be swapped around a fair amount. But as is single elim is better than double.
While I can definitely see the reasoning behind double elimination making things more predictable (G2 beat RNG in 2018 to surprise everyone but could they have done that again if they faced RNG in grands?) but at the same time a lot of pressure is put on one single set. The purpose of double elimination is to truly solidify who is the better team and who just got lucky or had a good breakfast the morning of. But yeah unlike traditional sports, or even other esports like smash bros, League is predicated on snowballing a lead which is why games feel so hopeless after one team gets first blood or a good teamfight.
In my opinion a double elimination would be fair only if the team on the winner bracket would get a second chance if they lose in the final otherwise is like the worse team had a "second life". Why would I want to win if I can just lose and play the worse teams until the finals where maybe I'm lucky and win.
@@christopherhall7216 - Actually the point of all of this is to entertain. The point of having a competition, a league, a tournament, any of this is to entertain the audience. If you don't have the occasional G2 breakthrough or NA getting out of groups, you can just flush away the entire western audience because honestly? If I wanted to just watch China vs Korea for an entire tournament then I'd watch whatever their rift rival thing is. And I've never watched it and I don't want to watch it.
But i put the thing ok pressure and stuff but if you are the best team no matter what you can win, if u are the best u need to put pressure on the side and play always the best no matter what, u can´t play knowing that you can lose have worst opponents and go the finals like that
SOOOO if you are the best you win no matter what if they surprise you, you did not prepared well and the best teams prepare themselves the best they can
@@christopherhall7216 Ideally, yes, competitions are to determine who the best competitor is. However, the existence of these competitions is largely dependent on the audience. If the audience is not entertained, then viewership will decrease, which means less sponsors, less money to fund the competition.
@@christopherhall7216 My point is more that the audience is what drives the funding for these kinds of competitions. The ladder is already funded by Riot, as they've put in the resources to build a system in which any player can choose to participate in, at no cost to them (not counting time or sanity lol). Plus, it's not as though Riot doesn't make a return on their investment because the existence of a ladder incentivises the competitive players to continue playing (at their own pace), thus maintaining their playerbase.
But now, let's talk about pro play. While the ladder is great for proving one's own abilities (by some metric), it is not a place to truly determine who's the best. League being a team centric game, it would be better to determine which team is the best. So now we have to form teams, and they have to practice as a team. And we know that most players are not going to practice for free. These players are going to be paid by their org. How did the org get money? Most likely, from sponsors who are hoping to get a good return on their investment because the org is receiving a lot of attention, largely due to an audience that is interested in seeing the best teams compete.
That IG vs KT throwback was exactly how everyone felt during the DK vs T1 semis.
Well, EDG just won worlds
I think the higher chance of a "upset" in Single-Elims does not not outweight how boring the average best of 5s in the playoffs will be. For every G2 vs RNG upset, there are 5 other 3-0 stomps to slog through. If i want to watch a competitive game where the outcome can go either team, it is much better to have two teams that are close in strength and calibre. This is especially more important for the health of the sport the closer it gets to the grand finals and the closer it gets more attention from future fans of the game. If i wanted to introduce a future fan of competitive fan of LOL to the scene, get him immersed in the energy and the passion of the clash and the conflicts, none of the Worlds Finals would probably make the list. And I think this is major flaw of Worlds.
Plus there is a recent double-elim tournament of a competing MOBA that runs counter to your arguments: The recent Dota 2 Internationals where a bunch of young rookies just had a major upset against the tournament favourites in a thrilling 5 game finals. The winning team Team Spirit was filled with 4 young rookies who had just started playing competitively last year and only one other veteran. Double-elim removes any ambiguity? Well, the Lower Bracket of Double-Elim is basically a Single-Elim tournament and you don't even get the trophy if you clear the Lower Bracket. For Team Spirit a team of young rookies, their paths to the Grand Finals consisted of having to defeat the previous champtions(OG), their regional rivals who had an overwhelming win record against them before the tournament (VP), the 2nd best Chinese Dota team that had sent them to the Lower Bracket in the first place (IG) and the best EU Dota team (Secret). Each of these teams had players who had played more years than the 4 rookies combined and had won major championships before. You would have bet on any of these teams to win TI before you would have bet on Team Spirit and it would have been a logical bet. And Yet Team Spirit delivered major upset after major upset in a row in the Lower Bracket. This was G2 vs RNG repeated 4 times here. And of course the Grand Finals was a thrilling match where LGD were highly favoured to win while TS was supposed to go home proud but defeated. Yet another major upset happened and the match would be one for the history books. I will rewatch the TI 10 grand finals or even the best TI finals, TI 8 before i will even touch the Worlds Finals
For me that type of double elim is very loser's bracket favored. Winning consistently in winner's bracket doesnt give you an advantage since once you are at the finals you are only allowed to lose once. The winning team from winner's bracket would never had that privilege of running it back. There is no sense of double elimination for the winner in winner's bracket. What do you think would happen if Spirit had to double eliminate PSG LGD on the finals? A true double elimination format just like in most esports fighting games would be Team Spirit needing to beat PSG.LGD twice. That's if we're really trying to be "scientific" here and get more sample test so that it gives a more accurate result. I think for the teams themselves it is unfair but for the viewers it may be 'fun' but that type of double elim imo ruins the accuracy and purpose of a double elimination. It's like double elim but not for the winning team from winner's bracket lol and people think that's the normal format. Crazy.
@@smlbnl233 Got to say that your wrong on this when i first read what you said, since I'm an OG fan and i know they won both their TI's being upper bracket i took some time to look into the TI past winners and just see where the winners came from, is it more Upper or Lower bracket winners, here it is:
TI1 - Navi - Upper Bracket Winner
TI2 - IG - Lower Bracket Winner
TI3 - Alliance - Upper Bracket Winner - Rematch from Upper bracket Final
TI4 - Newbee - Upper Bracket Winner
TI5 - EG - Lower Bracket Winner - Rematch from Upper bracket Final
TI6 - Wings Gaming - Upper Bracket Winner
TI7 - Team Liquid - Lower Bracket Winner
TI8 - OG - Upper Bracket Winner - Rematch from Upper bracket Final
TI9 - OG - Upper Bracket Winner
TI10 - Team Spirit - Lower Bracket Winner
Upper Winners - 6
Lower Winners - 4
Rematch Upper Brackets Finals replayed again in Grand Finals - 3
So yeah Upper has the advantage with what i originally thought, the rest and time to take to actually study the Lower Bracket final teams does give them an advantage. I believe the reason LGD lost to Team Spirit is they did not respect them enough to get past Team Secret so didn't put in the time to see what the strengths were.
What you said is true with Lower bracket teams have the moment but you also need to remember they don't have a rest after their win they got a couple of hours to prepare then they got to go the Grand Finals and face the Upper Bracket Winners.
What is also surprising is the Upper bracket Finals being replayed in the Grand Finals with there being 3 out the 10 past TI's, didn't think there would be many of them or if any lol.
@@Awesome9466 The statistics that you gave are nothing but misleading and inaccurate since the sample size are too small for an accurate conclusion.
Rest while it is okay is not necessarily an advantage especially in sports scene. You're forgetting the concept of 'momentum'. In every sports history momentum has played a significant factor in terms of stratregies and eventually winning games. Imo, it is still lower bracket favored if you have the same format like TI.
@@smlbnl233 Ah ok, you give no stats, or any information other then your 'opinion'.
I'm going to go with what the history has said and that is Upper Bracket is favored and not lower, due to the amount of winners so far.
You also forget with lower bracket the exhaustion and also depletion of strategy picks being used to get there as well as barely having any time to come up with strategies for the next game that a lower bracket team will need to do, compared to the whole day that the Upper Bracket time gets.
There is also the potential of the lower bracket team having to play up to 8 games in total, 3 maximum games in lower bracket final and a best of 5 in the grand finals. The lower bracket team will need a large amount of mental strength to go through , that's why there is less amount of lower bracket winners to upper brackets.
@@smlbnl233 take the example of the double elim format of smash bros competitive: whoever wins the losers bracket will get a disadvantaged state. if the winner bracket champ wins the set, they are crowned champs. if the winner bracket champ loses a set, in the next set it is a winner takes all. which makes more sense like this tbh since it does not make winning all games in a row futile
I understand where you're coming from, but the issue I have with your arguments is that there really isn't that much hard evidence to back up your worries about double elimination. People bring up Dota's TI because not only has it used double elimination for the past 10 years, but each and every single one of your concerns simply never seems to rise up there.
This past TI - TI10, had Team Spirit win, a squad of Russian Zoomers nobody has ever heard before - one which has the name TORONTOTOKYO for god's sake, 4 of which have never been to TI before, and they won decidedly after losing 0-2 to Invictus Gaming in the Upper Bracket Quarter finals, and marching their way to the Grand Finals through the lower bracket, knocking a whole slew of teams favoured to win in the process, and getting that 3-2 win against LGD - overall playing 16 games in the Main Brakcet. Their playstyle was solid. Collapse relied on an absolute godlike Magnus, and their carry player Yotaro had an immense hero pool (he played 13 different heroes in those 16 games, and he only started repeating heroes during the Grand Finals). To call this an upset would be an understatement. Each year, Dota allows players to make predictions about game stats, as well as make a fantasy bracket after group stages for how they think the bracket will play out, and only 1.6% of people predicted that Team Spirit would win.
This isn't isolated to TI10 either. TI8 was won by OG, who had an extremely rocky season, which left with most of the members leaving the team 6 weeks before TI, and n0tail - the team captain, having to basically rebuild the entire team from scraps - ending up with a (at the time considered to be) Tier 2/3 Offlaner, and a midlaner who never played in a major tournament before let alone TI, and was just someone who was good on the ranked ladder. Won TI through the lower bracket. Same thing arguably in TI5, TI2, and TI1. TI6 had an unknown team win, but going as far back as the group stages they were proving themselves to be extremely dominant and were favoured to win after their performance during groups, and even then the 2nd place team was an even larger dark horse team nobody expected. In short, at least in Dota, this whole idea that Double Elimination results in predictable results and reduces the chances of major upsets simply isn't the case, and in the case of Dark Horses, often makes their story lines better since doing a massive lower bracket run requires you to go up against so many teams that are considered to be favourites that it solidifies your position as a grand finalist, rather than ending up there because you happened to get the easier half of the bracket.
The point I'm trying to make is that there are many different esports out there that use double elimination brackets for their major events, and so if we want to theorize about how a certain format would play out, well the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Its pointless to theorize about possible consequences of certain formats when there is so much hard evidence that those consequences either are extremely small or non-existent.
Let's do a little thought experiment - let's imagine a world where League had the exact same format as TI. To recap, Dota has Bo2 Round Robin Group Stage with 2 groups of 9, and the groups are seeded as follows: Bottom team is out of the tournament, top 4 teams get seeded into the upper bracket, and teams 5-8 get seeded into the lower bracket (for simplicity's sake, we'll pretend that Worlds will have 2 groups of 8). The playoffs are a standard Double Elimination bracket where each match is Bo3, except for the grand finals which is Bo5, and the first round of the lower bracket which is Bo1.
Let's start with the Group Stages. In this scenerio no one gets eliminated after groups, and instead the group stage becomes a fight for who gets that "safety net", and who gets to fight the long way up. Also since its a Bo2 for 2 groups of 8, each team will play at least 14 matches within 4 days against 7 other teams, plus maybe some tie breaker matches if it comes down to that point. This immediately makes one massive change, since the risk of elimination is no longer present, teams now have a lot more room to experiment and try out some of their own strats - WHICH IS A HUGE DEAL. One of the biggest problems with Worlds and LolEsports in general is that when western teams come to worlds, they drop doing whatever they're good at, and start trying to replicate what the Koreans are doing. This is because with so few games at their disposal, the margin for error at worlds is so small and as such the safest option is to try and replicate what the dominant region is doing, which could result in forcing playstyles that do not suit the players. In this scenerio, each team has 14 games to try out different strategies and see what works for them, and if they see that their NA branded strats works well against the Korean meta strats, well now they can plan out a path on how they can play the tournament their own way, since they have a testing ground (which is exactly what happens at TI, the Group Stages is often a place of experimentations where the meta for the TI is discovered, and ends up setting the tone for the main bracket). This isn't to say that group stages becomes a pointless waste of time, sure no one gets eliminated, but whether or you not you make it to the Upper Bracket is still a huge deal. Not only do you get to play the rest of the tournament with a safety net, but you also don't have to deal with the Bo1 Round of Death, which as you pointed out, Bo1s are unpredictable and can lead to crazy upsets, and as a team you want to avoid that as much as possible, but still its not elimination so the room for experimentation is present.
Now that Group Stages are over, we go to the double elmination bracket. The Bo1s occur and they're a bloodbath, and we're onto the Top 12. The Upper Bracket is likely filled with Korean and Chinese teams, and inevitable some good teams will likely fall to the lower bracket after the quarterfinals. Here's where the next change happens, that Korean/Chinese team is now face to face with a Top 12 team that they likely haven't went up against in Groups, and now they have to deal with a massive problem. When you're a massive Top 3 team, all eyes are on you, and everyone is studying how you play, and are carefully looking for any mistakes in your gameplay or weaknesses to exploit, meanwhile if you're a Top 12 team, nobody really knows that much about you, and as such you have a lot more room to hide your weaknesses, or to hold your cards close to the chest. As the loser bracket team, you have already played 15 matches at this tournament, so at this point you have a pretty good sense of what works and what doesn't, and this allows you to have secret strats that you can use to surprise the favoured team.
All of this is precisely the secret ingredient that allows TI to have so many dark horses, and the reason why despite having double elimination, TIs consistently produce far more upsets and exciting games compared to worlds. The final thing I want to bring up is viewership stats. TI10 broke record with 2.7 million peak viewers, compared to worlds 2020 which had around 3.8 million viewers, at least in the west (China is excluded from these counts because Chinese data is extremely unreliable - Chinese streaming services are notorious for inflating their viewcounts and as such any numbers that come from that region should be taken with a grain of salt). Sure Worlds still has more viewers, but League is also a much bigger game, 10x bigger by some estimates especially in NA and Western Europe, and yet in the best case scenerio they can only get double the viewership for their world championships compared to Dota. Dota is far better at enticing its own playerbase to watch and consume esports content, and the format is likely the reason why. By having so many opportunities for upsets which results in not only more international competition but crazy games where you don't know who's going to win, people get far more invested, and are far more likely to tune in to watch the crazy action unfold, become a fan for a specific team, and overall tune in to watch TI each and every single team.
Sorry for the long essay.
More group stage games, best of 16 playoffs (so maybe more overall teams going to worlds) would be the play imo. Its a fine line between enough international competition and too much. In CSGO before covid it was obviously too much. Teams would play 4 big events a month and would travel more than play. Very good teams with the luxury of skipping events would often only go to one event a month. But in League its too little imo. If MSI was comparable to worlds, witg all the top teams from every region, it would be fine. But MSI is very very limited and then all the pressure is on worlds. Worlds being at the end of the year, in a completely different meta than MSI doesnt help either. Players are already pretty tired and the meta just means too much if the entire year is decided on the very last pro patch
I've been an advocate for 32-team Worlds for a while now. Scrap play-in stage, and just make 8 groups of 4 teams. You give every region the number of seeds they currently have, then divide 8 more seeds among them, 1-4 or even 1-5 seeds per region in total.
You no longer have a region with a team in every group, yet at the same time, you can give the biggest regions multiple pool 1 teams (e.g. two KR, two CN, one EU, one NA, one PCS, one VN as pool 1, or whatever seems fairest). Then, in knockout stage, you have 16 teams rather than the current 8 that compete in a single elimination bracket.
Currently, it's theoretically possible that all 8 teams are from two regions (CN and KR), while with this bracket, EVEN IF those two regions would get to send five teams, that'd only make 10, which means you have guaranteed AT LEAST four regions total in the bo5 bracket. And quite possibly more - imagine, for example 4 CN, 4 KR, 3 EU, 2 NA, 1 PCS, 1 VN and 1 other team (CIS, TCS, LJL, whatever) in knockout stage. That doesn't sound all that far-fetched to me. Seven different regions! And an additional 8 bo5s on top of the 7 the current bracket has.
@@Leyrann this looks great, it happens to be the footbal World Cup format, which ALSO happens to be the biggest professional sport event in the entire world.
PS : I'm not just saying that because I'm French by the way, think of Croatia : how crazy their trip to finals was ? Give one more BO5 series, one more team to beat, and the potential for upset is componded. Making a victory all the more desirving and gratifying
@@Leyrann that would be great hope it happens!! I live that format!! More teams more matches and double elim
I'd be okay with scrapping MSI and having the All-Star event after Spring splits finish so we have a "for fun" international showing and a taste of what's to come when Worlds (double elim bracket) starts.
I'd argue that even making the tournament double elimination wouldn't take away the upsets, though making them less important in the grand scheme of the tournament would also make them less exciting.
How about a middle-ground approach for both single and double elim fans? The format being two groups of 8 teams playing bo3 double elims. And then two teams get out of each group, so from top 4 its bo5 single elim.
quite frankly, this was one of the most interesting arguments i recently heard. and comment section just makes it better.
thanks for such great and high quality content.
keep it up. wish you well
blessed the day is - new gbay video
Your argument is based on the premise that having a more predictable set of teams reach deep stages of a tournament means reducing ambiguity. It is important that when you are making an argument you explain your position -- and while you explained your logic (and it makes sence), the premise you are basing your argument on the other hand is not elaborated upon. And I don't agree with the premise, hence I will try to explain why I believe it to be wrong.
First of all, the basic reason for wanting predictable ("strongest") teams to go further in the tournament is the fact, that having stronger teams makes results less predictable. As you have correctly pointed out, viewers want the result to not be obvious, and thus we want to provide the best possible opposition to the best teams to avoid predictable stomps. Secondly, double elimination increases the volume of games, and having higher game volume increases variance in the bracket thus increasing ambiguity. While it makes it more certain that the favorites are going to go further, the path they take can be very different based on outcomes, making the tournament more exciting. Thirdly, double elimination by its nature matches teams that are close in skill in the lower bracket, and as a result matches for tournament life have higher stakes and in general are less predictable. As a result, introducing double-elimination bracket may result in more ambiguity. And if it does so (and I believe it does) it pretty much voids your entire argument.
So as you can see, even though I agree with the fact that we need more ambiguity and interesting story lines, I do believe that the premise you are using for this argument is wrong and therefore I arrive to the opposite conclusion to yours. Tbh, you may disagree with my point, but the most important takeaway from my reply shouldn't be that I am right, but rather that the argument in the video is poorly constructed, since it's fully based on an arbitrary point that may be wrong.
Wouldn't your argument be poorly constructed then too?
@@Hotdogandpizzas The reason I've called the whole argument "poorly constructed" is that for the end conclusion of Gbay we have two premises: "(e)sports audience dislikes fully predictable games" and "double-elimination reduces ambiguity resulting in predictable games". Gbay argues for the first one in the vid, but he doesn't explain why the second one is true. And it's a very strong opinionated point, that can be argued both ways as I have hopefully demonstrated by pointing out that "a predictable tournament" doesn't necessarily mean "predictable games" (if you reduce my argument it was just that). Since his second premise is quite key for the argument, is contentious, isn't elaborated upon and because the argument falls apart without it, I'd say it's fair to call the whole thing poorly constructed. Inference doesn't work, if the premise isn't accepted.
And yes, my argument may be poorly constructed too, and it's very likely that it is since it's just a youtube comment. Btw we can meme ontology and just go deep into the depth of finding basics to prove any opinion to be poorly constructed, since everything has some accepted premise, but that's not a fun thing to do. The difference from that and my comment is that I have attempted to prove the premise to be false instead of just saying "hey we cannot have unproven premises duh".
@@azsdghg inb4 fallacy of fallacies
In double elim, some individual matches might have more ambiguity (as you said, you pit the strongest teams against other strong teams), but the overall route is less ambiguous. You end up getting KR/CN grand finals everytime. So it's not a super clear-cut "more ambiguous" or "less ambiguous" or "wrong premise" (every argument rests on some assumptions), it comes down to what you want to be ambiguous. Double elim favors more ambiguous outcomes to individual matches by pitting teams of close skill against each other. Single elim favors more ambiguous tournament routes, since teams are knocked out permanently, so you might not get the same regions in semis and finals everytime.
Ofc, this is just how I interpreted your comment and Gbays video. I might be misrepresenting Gbays argument.
@@azsdghg The "ambiguity" that Gbay is talking about is completely missed in your response. The ambiguity he's talking about is confirming strong teams to be strong and weak teams to fall to strong teams. The first point is argued in the context of league as a game. If you're a weaker team, then over larger data the trend should move to them losing more, which is what will happen in a double elimination bracket. That's what gbay is saying. The RNG v G2 2018 series is used because, when you look back, it really is one of the biggest upsets because RNG didn't have a second life. If RNG goes on and plays G2 again in loser's semis, assuming that would be the result of the lower bracket, then there is a higher percentage that they will win.
Also, your connection between variance and volume is misleading. Yes, having larger game volume will lead to higher variance, but having higher volume will also mean there will be more game with expected outcomes. If RNG has a 70/30 chance of a win/loss against G2, then yes, there will be more chances of G2 winning in that circumstance, but there will also be a lot more games where RNG will, expectedly, win. THIS is what gbay is arguing. We know that RNG will probably win against G2, but if G2 upset RNG (like they did) then having them rematch in loser's bracket, assuming an RNG win, will just confirm a result that we already predicted before.
tl;dw - The reason I'm against a straight double-elim bracket is I don't like the thought of sacrificing the excitement of every non-grand finals series just to have a more exciting grand finals series. I'd rather each series matter and see less competitive matches, than only have grand finals matter but get to see a few more competitive games.
League already has a problem with matches being really predictable with few upsets ever occurring. We need the upsets that DO occur to matter, otherwise we'll know who's going to win before Worlds even begins - why bother watching the games?
In retrospect I realize I didn't state that super clearly in the video. Hope you guys still enjoyed the discussion! New doc next month.
Great video once again gbay! Would love to see more of these vlog style videos on your main channel. One thing I expected you to touch on in this video was the fact that grand finals could end up being like 7 hours long by going to game 10. I don’t watch much professional esports so i’m curious if you think it would not be that big of a deal?
Liked the video a lot, your arguments for why you prefer one over the other are clear, however
> I don't like the thought of sacrificing the excitement of every non-grand finals series just to have a more exciting grand finals series.
But the finals are THE match that should matter the most and be the most exciting. Besides, it's not like teams get infinite chances with double elim. Every lower bracket match is still do or die for the teams and upsets can occur in lower brackets.
>League already has a problem with matches being really predictable with few upsets ever occurring. We need the upsets that DO occur to matter
This is just sacrificing long term consistency for short term excitement. And honestly, after watching league for almost 10 years, i personally don't care about that short term excitement. I want to see EU and NA perform well at the world stage consistently. And after G2 and FNC getting to finals we now see, again, almost total collapse of the west with only 2 EU/NA teams getting out of groups. Even with the exciting upsets, those 2 finals appearances start to feel more like a fluke and less like an indication of the west "finally catching up".
I now realize this turned into a "west sucks" rant, but i just wanted to communicate that exciting upsets are not that exciting (at least for me) if they are followed by disappointments in cases of both 2018 and 2019, and now in 2021.
The flaw, though, is that a championship is supposed to determine a world champion - who the best in the world currently is - as accurately as possible. By definition, you cannot sacrifice predictability without also sacrificing said accuracy, and once you do, you're no longer measuring who's the best of the best. Rather you're measuring who among the top 5 got lucky enough in their brackets. Is that truly what you want Gbay? For world championships to no longer track who the best team is, just so you can have more upsets by lesser skilled teams?
That's not entirely true. If the only goal was to determine the literal best team we'd just have a massive group stage with the top few teams playing best of 13 series against each other.
The appeal of a knockout bracket is the idea that the best team isn't guaranteed to win. Theoretically ANYONE can win since there isn't as many matches being played. All one team needs is a good run. This is true for either single elim or double elim.
Always nice seeing you posted
This is the classic and eternal struggle between the two sides of competition. Fairness, and entertainment. On one side, sport is an extremely unique and amazing form of entertainment, but on the other side, the entire point is to figure out who is best.
The single-double elim argument is the quintessential example. And there is no answer, as always, it's just which lesser evil you prefer.
Also I found it immensly hilarious how one of your two reasons why people want double elim is the two best teams facing off in grand finals, and your main reason for why single elim is good is because that often does not happen.
Doesn't that just perfectly encapsulate the entire argument? One side wants x, and the other wants all but x.
imo single is fine, but one difference I would make is make group stage matches BO3. Not only would that increase international competition AT LEAST TWOFOLD, but it would also create more accurate seedings going into the bracket, making the two best teams more likely to end up at opposite sides of the bracket, but still allowing underdogs to shine due to the same amount of matches.
I had the same idea you had but I think that's a bit too long of a time. We already see BO5s last 3-5hours or more if there were to be technical difficulties.
Longer games = longer time playing = longer time away on home countries for teams participating
I'm not sure if the families of the players would easily accept that, nor the players themselves.
After groups stage, it takes like a month just to finish the entire tournament, that is to let the players have rest and preparation for their next matches to come.
In my opinion only, more games would make it much harder to follow the games. Like, not everyone have the luxury of time to watch them all or their important matches/fans of a team.
Love these sit down videos
People have been complaining about how championships are crowned in almost all sports for as long as I can remember. There will always be complaining.
Difference is sports can’t afford to do double eliminations in a short amount of time due to the players physical recovery. Meanwhile if Riot removed playins and group stages. Let wildcards still join but seeded lower which makes more sense than the current format we have now.
What sports?
@@MrDT2012 All of them. You can find endless articles complaining about the playoff structure for MLB, NCAA basketball tournament, etc. It’s endless.
@@Johnrl21 I mean NCAA football I understand, but what’s wrong with teams playing a best of 7 in like basketball, hockey, etc.
@@MrDT2012 Take this year for example. The 88 win Braves had home field advantage in the NLCS over the 106 win Dodger teams simply because they Braves were in a weaker division. Then there’s a 1 game wild card. Point is there will always be these little things that are “unfair”. It’s really hard to avoid it…..and to my point, there will always be people that complain about it no matter what you do.
Great video! Love your stuff Gbay.
I will say that for part 3, the examples you give about previous Worlds' upsets, if it were double elimination, we would get to see matchups like TOP/JDG vs DRX/G2 in 2020, or KT vs RNG / C9 vs G2 in 2018 or something like this. There would still be further upset potential. Double elim doesn't guarantee the best teams make it to top 3 or top 4, just like Single elim doesn't. Sure it makes it more likely, but the same stories that develop from a Single elim bracket are equally as likely to occur in a loser's bracket due to just the percentages certain teams have to win. Double elim adds so much more for the viewer (more international best ofs) while still not taking away from crazy upsets that happen. It still would've been insane that G2 beat RNG in 2018 even if RNG ran the loser's bracket all the way to finals.
Given that almost all people are invested in 1-2 regions at most, I think they watch Worlds to see the best LoL there is. I will be excited if the team that the casters assure me are underdogs win but if the quality of play falls off after that it hurts the entertainment. Also, for me at least, I kinda want the "certainty" that at the end of the year I will know who the best team really was, it seems fair. If they are by far the best then they will not lose and they will not go to loser's bracket, but if they lose once then I will gladly watch the exciting and higher quality comeback run to win it all
Always good to hear Gbay's perspective
You make the Best videos man. Keep them coming!!
Hi, Gbay. Keep the good work, buddy.
I love that you made it clear, and while I staunchly loyal towards double elimination I appreciate the fact that having it does come with some amount of devaluing of some series. I would love to see a version of the LJL Playoffs be adapted for worlds, meaning that first in groups puts you into the top bracket, first in each of the groups would play one another in a BO5, losers would drop down to play the winners of 2nd place in each of the groups. Yes that does mean a team will make it to finals only playing two BO5, but personally, if they beat the other top teams, don't they deserve that? While at the same time a 2nd place team to make it all the way to finals would have to play four BO5, its a reward for doing well in the group stage.
I mean, EDG came from the losing bracket (LPL use double elim), won summer LPL and Worlds 2021. I think doing double elim in regional league is important because we all want to see the best teams from each region compete, but I agree with you the current Worlds match is nice and is probably the only way we could see LCS/LEC be in the final.
Same for RNG and MSI that same year: dropped to loser's bracket in spring finals, made the run to win LPL Spring and win MSI
I absolutly love documentary Gbay. Really found your niche. Always looking forward to the next through provoking video.
While I see your point I am still in favor of double elims, having said that, more would need to change to make it work. I think dota has a really good structure for the internationals. Many times the winner came from a miracle run of the losers brackets. I think remove restrictions on regions and just get a set of the best teams to worlds. Put them in two large groups and seed them into upper and lower brackets. You get more games and it's more competitive.
Always fun to hear an explanation from the contrarian side when it’s put together well. Great vid Gbay
I think you did a fantastic job of presenting both sides of the argument without any bias, great video gbay.
You're back sooner than last time. Cool.
Single elim would be fine if we had more international events each year, but worlds and msi are the only two events we get to see all the teams from across the world compete, and so for us to only get more than one bo5 from 4 teams in the entire world feels pretty awful.
It all depends on what the goal of the World Championship should be. Should we be focused on crowning the best team in the world? Should our focus be on more international play? Should there be more games? Should there be less games?
The issue is that the Eastern Teams are just so much better than the Western Teams. As Western fans we want to see more opportunities for our Teams to continue to play and possibly make it out. We think that double elimination will offer that, but in reality it will stack the final days of the tournament in the Eastern Teams favor. The only reason groups seem competitive is because they are BO1 matches. If we want to make Worlds more entertaining then we would need to make it an entire BO1 single elimination tournament.
Actually, one of the major reasons western teams cite for poor performance is lack of good practice partners. So if they get more time and more practice we could see the west be more competitive. The west was always more creative with their picks than the eastern teams, so the meta getting more time to evolve could be interesting as well. Sure the eastern teams are usually better but I don't think giving teams more time cements their dominance.
I doubt anything will be more exciting than the group D day with the 4 way tie between the big 4 regions. Was such and exciting and fun day. I was pretty excited about the knockout stage but 3 out 4 3-0's is just not exciting or that fun to watch.
Yeah I pretty much agree with everything here. I still feel like inter-regional play is a problem but I don't think double elimination is the best way to go about it.
That said, I find interesting your comments about LoL as a sport, so I'm gonna talk about that hehe. For starters, it's true that traditional sports like Football, Baseball, Soccer don't reward you for the advantages you get, and that makes it easier for the losing team to make a comeback. But I've always thought of League more similar to Boxing or MMA, where if you come to the ring prepared and you win the first round (laning phase) pretty convincingly, you have a noticeable advantage over your opponent from that moment forward in the fight, because they are hurt. What I find interesting about League is that, on top of that, there's no time limit or points limit (like in Volleyball), in League you HAVE to close the game, and no matter how far ahead you are, you HAVE to destroy their nexus. Even if your opponent is 15k behind, if they stall for long enough and get 1 good teamfight, they will take down your nexus and win, and nothing of what happened the previous 40 minutes matter.
My favorite kind of League games are the ones where the underdog gets a big advantage in the first 10 minutes, because then the question is "can they close?". It's cool because, opposite to traditional sports, if the underdog gets the advantage early they actually get stronger than their opponent and they get a real chance at winning (in soccer if the underdog gets a lucky goal at the start of the game, they will most likely lose because they would've lost 0-4 anyways, now they lose 1-4) BUT at the same time the underdogs have to prove they have what it takes to close a game, and that's not easy against the favorites. Say what you want about Worlds finals but I prefer that over something like the UEFA Champions League finals between Liverpool and Tottenham a couple years ago, where Liverpool found a goal early and then they just defended for the remaining 80 minutes of the game.
We all know that one SKT comeback is one of the most iconic games in League history, and this Worlds we already had something similar in game 2 between DK and MAD. The problem is people usually see those games as "throws" but man, I love those kinds of games and I wish underdogs focused more on winning early game instead of just letting better teams slowly choke them out of the game...
I have never heard about the comparison between League and Boxing/MMA, but that is really interesting point. I also think "closing out game" and "mid-late game come back" are interesting characteristics of a strong team in League. Thanks for the input!
so cool that Scout is now playing in the World Finals, after you made a video on him
Oh boy spicy topic
The main thing I have with MOBA double elims is the fact there isn't a chance for a bracket reset. The losers bracket team has a second life while the winners bracket team's only advantage is side selection, not even through the series. In FGC/Smash and pre-CDL what made every event and series worth watching was because you always felt like the right team was gonna win because everyone got 2 chances. Losers bracket runs are rare but immensely exciting. So much so that even now I go and see if I can find which team made the longest losers run through any given tourney.
Love you Gbay!! I'm early wooot! You're keeping me awake though.. Smh
Does anyone know the music that was being played in the background?
My favorite double elim tournament was EVO 2017 Street Fighter 5 top 8. Tokido's run from Loser's side was genuinely amazing to watch.
I love how when you disagree with something or someone’s opinion, you fully explain it and do it justice. I honestly left this video really agreeing with you, even as someone who came in wanting double elimination to exist.
I think this was the least logical argument I've seen on youtube since Ray Comfort's banana. Current format has been boring the last 2 years. 0 upsets. So why pretend the current format is good at getting you upsets? SN beating TES/JDG was not an upset, they were considered only very slight underdogs after the group stage in which TES lost to FQ and JDG lost to PSG. Wanting more upsets is stupid to begin with, people dont watch to see upsets but to see the best teams play against the other best teams and current format is failing at that also. If upsets make it exciting, why dont more people watch lower leagues where upsets are common as dirt? Because the skill level is lower. Clearly, we are watching to see the highest level skill players play against each other. The fact we never got to see peak 2019-2020 G2 play against peak TES/JDG/DRX/GRF/IG is shitty. He gives us a glimpse in the video of what a loser's bracket would look like, why would you not want to see RNG vs HLE or MAD vs C9?! Imagine how exciting it would be if RNG could make a loser's bracket run, knockout HLE then T1, and get to the final against DWG.
@@valleyshrew here’s the thing though, if you’re truly the best team, why did you lose a full Bo5 against a team that is supposedly worse than you are? It’s not like it’s single elim Bo1 where random stuff can happen. It’s a full Bo5 where you can adapt to what the enemy is playing. The best team in the world doesn’t need a safety net to win worlds.
@@mathematiciantim3439 No team ever went unbeaten at worlds, they all had safety nets. If you're truly the best team, why cant you win anymore if there's a loser's bracket? A league format is fairest, and winning teams usually lose about 4/18 times in their league yet are still considered the best team. The purpose of the loser's bracket is mostly for the rest of the positions to be fairer (2nd best team often gets knocked out in quarters or semis by the best team), and for the fans to see more top match ups. Why wouldnt you want that?
Of the top 8 teams, we see only 7 of 27 matchups, plus 4 more in groups, still way less than half. Of the top 4 teams, we get to see only 3 of 6 matchups. Last year we didnt get to see G2 or DWG vs TES, that would have been exciting, though we had seen G2 vs SN already in groups. The format especially sucks for English speaking fans who naturally mainly watch LEC & LCS. We got to see 0 best of 3s or 5s between LEC and LCS, or either of them with LPL teams, even though the west had an 8-6 record over the LPL this year massively surpassing expectations. Any excitement over the occasional upset is massively dwarfed by the disappointment of seeing so few matches between top teams at the event we waited all year for.
The one problem I can see is that the team that wins the winner's bracket should also be given a second chance in the real final. You certainly wouldnt want to go into the loser's bracket because you might lose there, but if you do win it, you receive an unfair advantage. The loser's bracket team seems to win more than you would expect.
Nah I think double elimination is still good regardless of random upsets Which is cool but even if they should matter they should solidify they are the best by doing it twice
Have double elim's until top 4 and then normal brackets from semis onwards?
I would still love to see Riot TRY a Worlds with Double Elim to see what happens, ovb easier said than done as you have to book more venues etc but would still like to see an experimental Worlds year
Interesting video as always Gbay! You've made some good points but now i'm only conflicted with my opinion.
Keep it up bro
Damn good points for sure, the thrill of single elim where that series you play is the most important series of the year or else you're out is mad true - good shit gbay :D
I feel like, if I were just in a room somewhere and heard GBay talking, I would immediately know it was him. And I’d probably go listen to whatever he has to say. So much good information all the time
I'd like for them to try double elim at MSI and see how it goes
Totally agree; bracket worlds isn't 'who is the best team now or next week', its now or never.
I think the solution is to make groups bigger (2 groups of 8 or something), then 1 plays 4, etc.
Imo the Worlds format is fine, but the problem is it's so short and you have to wait an entire year to see it again. That's a huge problem for me. If they had an international tournament equivalent to Worlds 3 or 4 times a year, and we would crown a world champion every 4 months or so, that would be perfect with the existing format
When are you making wild rift videos?
A possibility could be 1/8 finals instead of groups that means 16 teams has to compete in best of fives which means you will probably see more international play, there is two ways to do this, you can ditch groups all togheter and just start the 1/8 final (where you normally would start groups), or you can expand the tournament, and make it bigger, 8 groups, big event more seeds and more mixed comepetition. 8 groups, top two in the groups win proceeds to 1/8 final and the mixed competition starts, I know it will take more time and it will be harder on players, but if they make a higher price pool, and have worlds for 2-3 weeks longer i think it's doable.
I wish the group stage for workds 2022 will look something more like what they are doing for Valorant Champions
As someone who loves international football (soccer), the excitement of the World Cup is what makes me happy. Its format is arguably one of the worst systems for showing a true deserving winner (winner only ever gets to play 7 games). The upsets of a underdog beating a giant/favorite in the bracket is what makes me excited to come back when i'm not cheering for the country I cheer for. If we removed single elimination brackets at that point with a double elimination bracket these upsets would not be as rewarding, both in league and in the World Cup. I have some issues with the play in stage, but other than that i don't have any issue with the bracket stage.
Loved the video!
Football is a physical sport, of high contact, And one more thing: the world cup lasts 30 days, no player would be able to play 12 games in 30 days. It's not that I don't like double elimination, but it wouldn't work for highly physical sports (Football, American Football, Rugby)
The big problem of Double Elim is that loser teams are kind of benefiting from having more games than in the winners bracket.
More international and inter-east and west competitions pleeeeeease
We want the Avocado plush back for these type of videos
First of all, riot should unify season format for all regions, at least the major ones. So either teams Play best of one in regular season or bo3. That would change a lot
until this gets addressed the skill disparity between leagues will only grow year after year until it’s changed. it’s unrealistic to expect any bo1 league to compare in skill to leagues that play bo3, and it’s a joke riot even thinks this is fair and balanced.
I can't believe I missed this
Banger as always
Damnit gbay! I came into the video thinking you were straight up wrong but I end the video agreeing with you
Here's my fix:
-extend to 32 teams
-remove play-ins
-8 groups of 4 and a round of 16
-No teams from same region can play in the round of 16
-A coefficient based of (for example) regions performance over the past 3 years and that team's performance that year
-4 seeds for group draw ( based on that coefficent)
But for the MSI i feel like thats where double-elim makes sence since its only winners from spring split so removing these kinds of upsets doesnt really change much.
So just by this we go from 10 international bo5's to 21 by not really changing the structure that much, where at MSI we would actually have the finals between the number 1 and 2 team, while at worlds we would have a chance for much more upsets and would be much more exciting.
And one more thing for worlds, have bo5's be played more freqently, for example max 2-3 days beteween stages (qf to sf to finals), like in where else do we see QF's,SF's and Finals be played only on seperate weekends with 5-6 days between them.
Am I crazy for thinking DWG vs. SN was a great grand finals? First 3 games were super competitive plus the first and only penta of grand finals ever. I put it as my third favorite behind EDG vs. DK and SKT vs. SSG.
if we can add another international tournament within the year and make that one into a double elimination to see who really is the best team in the world then I think worlds can stay in the current format
but if Riot doesn't want to add another international tournament then all we can hope for is change within the current ones
changing MSI is another option but that might be a bit hard on the players since even with the current format of MSI the teams that go to it end up kinda slumping at the beginning of the season in their respective regions
but there really should be at least 1 international tournament every year that decides who really is the best in the world
the current worlds format is totally fine if there was at least 1 tournament like that every year
Bring back rift rivals
To me, doing a double elim will feel like bringing back Super Weeks from the days of EULCS and NALCS. Taxing as a whole-players, officials, and broadcast team.
What I'd like to see if them add rules in the quarterfinals that prevent the same region playing each other if possible.
Yeah nah
EDIT: Ok, there's some good points but I wanna see coinflip teams have a second chance but I also don't want to see a team's win get invalidated because they didn't really eliminate their opponent. Now I'm conflicted lmao
Honestly, it really comes down to if you think a tournament should determine the best team or if it should create the most exciting viewing experience.
Honestly I dont think double elim makes for any less exciting viewing experience. For lol worlds the "true grand finals" match is so often before grand finals it makes for a far less exciting experience. The only way the current single elimination could compete in excitement is if they hand craft the brackets to put the biggest favorites on opposite sides and at that point the whole thing can end up feeling rigged, no one can have impartial precognitive authority on such a thing
What about region locking the quarterfinal draw (ie no 'Civil Wars') + placing teams from same region in different half of the draws (ie if 2 LPL teams in top, guarantee that both teams will end in different halves of the draw)?
because then you might have some "impossible" draws
Commenting for the algorithm 🙏🏼
All I know is when it’s grand finals in a fighting game tournament, and the bracket gets reset; there is nothing more hype than what ensues..
So do you see the need to Improve how worlds are right now because there are issues and when yes how would you do it? I thought about the idea of a champions league but thats probably not feasable because they would have to be at the same place due to ping
What would be cool I think would be a single 16 team bracket, where every team plays every team twice for seating. than a 16 team single elim knockout.
IMO with how often a Worlds playoff series ends in 3-0 or 3-1 for the team that came in favourite to win the series, makes me lean towards double elim instead of having the possibility for an upset. I'd rather see some interesting matches we wouldn't otherwise see. Also with the current format, the best matches quite often happen in the semi final and then the final is pretty lackluster (what will happen again from the looks of it in 2021)
Yeah i get that. I am infact not entirely sure about double elim but i think we can have more interesting knockouts if we change the group stage.
If we had two groups instead of four with teams competing in bo1 we would see more regional matchups along side International ones. This way the teams get to play more games even if it Is a single round robin. The other thing I found interesting about 2021 Msi was the double group stage thing. Obviously at worlds we have more teams so se could have something like:
-two really big groups (idk how many teams It depends wether the play-ins stuff changes or not) with teams fighting everyone One single time
-the last (*insert value*) teams are out and the new two smaller groups are made by mixing the remaining teams based on seeding. Every team plays everyone in the group once again and the top 4 get to quarters (and i think u can treat the top2 as First seed and 3-4 as second seed so 1st from group A gets 3 or 4 from group B and the 2nd from group A the other)
Conclusions:
So the good part for the teams is: even if u don't get to quarters u will have more than 6 stage games (if get knocked out in the second group stage)
Every game still counts (u could say count less cause u play more but actually getting to the second group stage with a bad record will hurt really hard) so a win is a win and a loss is a loss
One con is: u can argue that we Will no longer see groups of death and i agree with that, but if im honest 2 out 4 groups are most likely going to be uninteresting no matter what and i'm down to change from 4 to 2 groups if this makes for a Better playoff race.
Last part: u could give teams points based on seeding after every group stage to be sure to have the two teams with the most landing on opposite side of the bracket.
Yo that's all boys, of course every format has its own cons, i just thought could have been cool to share the idea
Fun thing is, exact arguments you give against double eliminations are arguments I'd use for format update (with double elim being one option). It does reduce results variance, helps dealing with League's problem of team relative strength not being transient (just because X beats Y and Y beats Z doesn't mean X beats Z). Essentially: trades away upset potential for more technical and - for a lack of better word - stable tournament that gets relative ranking much closer to what we'd expect if all possible combinations played out, and puts a lot more attention on teams that are have steady, reliable performance while pushing upsets and volatile strategies away from relevance.
Except, I don't think double elim is that good at providing such outcome - much better system would be to replace semis and finals with everyone-plays-everyone group of BO5s. This way current group stage still matters (quarterfinals are still single elimination, so getting #1 in groups puts you at advantage), quarterfinal winners proceed to play against each other in total of 6 games - so less than what double elim would have, and with much less skill mismatch. The only draw possibility is 3 teams getting transient 2-1 with one getting 3-0 (A > B > C > A) that would have to be solved. Bonus: there's no chance for another boring finals, since there is no finals match.
I didn't know Phreak and Gbay were related
gbay try circular glasses next time you get a new pair, you'd look slick af i reckon
rly good arguments, hopefully it gets talked about.
Finally Gbay has spoken
Ok, but like, where can I get that sweat shirt ? Lol
League is adding more comeback mechanics, for example the new Chemtech dragon dealing more damage when your HP is lower than your opponents; more items which allow for more item nuance and skill expression which could favor the losing, but more skilled teams; and objective bounties. Maybe when league improves this issue of overly predictable bo5's and game states, a double elim bracket would then add excitement and not "Take out what ambiguity is left". Great video. Fingers crossed for progress for worlds 2022.
Actually after world finals lpl loves double elimination system, because it reveals the real best team:EDG RNG and eliminate the fake king FPX. RNG went to loser bracket and won spring final against FPX and later won MSI. EDG also went to loser bracket and won summer final against FPX and later won worlds. DK is always the biggest enemy of lpl, glad to see double elimination choose the best to face DK and win.
Also, remember what happened when FPX in 2021 groups, if LPL keeps using previous play-off arrangement, we may see FPX will our 1st seed, team WE will be our second seed which is hardly imagined for us.
comment on part 2, that's why a game like CS-go can be interesting to watch, even though teams who are ahead aren't punished for loosing a round as hard as the loosing team. there's always a possibility for the team who is behind to win the next round and the next one again. mainly because it isn't the lead which determents who wins a round but more so the strategy or the mechanics used in the specific round. I believe its more similar to "normal sports" than a snowball game like league.
I think that the value we see in the actual best game that can be offered in a tournament far outweighs the excitement from an upset win eliminating a tournament favourite leaving the later rounds feeling underwhelming. A single elimination tournament basically manufactures short term underdog wins, while in a double elimination bracket a true underdog win would be more rare but would be much more meaningful and exciting.
IPL 5's Format looks insane, how did they came up with this and how was the feedback back then? Was it good to watch or nah? Bracket Phase looks huge
Not having double elimination makes League more like WWE than UFC.
Now, I don't know about you, but the better team should always win. Simply put, the current format leaves a lot of questions up in the air if an upset was legit. Thus, not giving us a definitive answer if they were the better team...
Would loved to see hle vs mad lions and rng vs c9 etc in losers brscket
excuse me if this sounds dumb but wasnt G2 one of the main favorites to win 2019 Worlds? I think even above JDG/Top. They won MSI, alot of people expected them to win Worlds too.
Sounds kinda weird to appraise them as underdogs of that year, I mean i get it it was EU but still
Around 14:00 they will change league in preseason to give team thats lower a bigger hit out of ending those objectives
Honestly, two groups of 8 is much much better than double elim. Other esports do double eliminations and have crazy...CRAZY runs (e.g. Team Spirit in the recent TI10, Tekken EVO Japan 2019, both Tekken World Tour) but most of the time and especially in FGC, they usually favor the best team winning the championship.
Two groups of 8 (probably just single round robin is okay) make it that EVERY game matters. It's always been a problem in which that some teams lose more games than other teams but still make it out (e.g. C9 this Worlds) and honestly a 4th seed from the harder group could still surprise people.
There are definitely issues with the current format, and I would like to see much, much more international play, but I don't think double elimination is the quick fix that many seem to think.
I wouldn't say G2 reaching finals in 2019 was much of an upset though, they were among the top favourites going into the tournament and had to face off against two other favourites in DWG and SKT to get there. But, even if G2 were a favourite in 2019, watching the upset in 2018 felt much more ground breaking than the series in 2018. I don't think that series would have had nearly the same impact in a double elimination format.
I want to see only 2 games of a series per day. If its a stomp the losing team has a day to look at their flaws. Most of the time it is easier to improve when you got beaten (with a possibility to rewatch the game) than it is for the winning team to improve.
The viewer expierience would also go up imo, they can do more series on a day. After watching a 2-0 stomp without close games you could after that see a close series
Going back to this video after DRX defeats EDG and GEN. G and I have been convinced. Beautiful storylines exist due to the uncertainty of results. Those games are HYPEEEE!!!
Hear me out here. Why don't we make the whole tournament a giant swiss format, where teams get "x" games each, without brackets or anything, just plain swiss, and all the temas get to play against as much of the other teams as possible. With this format, there's always hope for a team to comeback and get a championship even if their start was a bit rough, and at the end, the team with the most points wins or something.
Adding to this idea, we should think of a way so things don't get like: oh yeah, after "y" games you can drop because you cannot win from here. Something that happens a lot in tournaments with this format, at least in my cardgame experience.