DOTA 2
- Thread starter Bels_sl
- Start date
- 11,313
- 2,419
They updated brackets and stuff for the main event. Alliance picked LGD.cn to play first while Na'Vi picked Orange(#1 seeds pick tied teams they want to play). Liquid got lucky and got MUFC in LB, either LGD.int or Mouz is going home after the first match(well not literally but they're out of the tournament).
http://www.dota2.com/international/m...ule/wednesday/
http://www.dota2.com/international/m...ule/wednesday/
Dandain
Trakanon Raider
- 2,092
- 917
I'm still shocked that loser's bracket first 2 rounds? are 1 and done? if you get sent down from winners in your first match, your life becomes a Bo1 that is correct right.
Example would be.
Navi Beats Orange - Sends orange to LB round 2.
Dignatas beats Rattlesnake - Rattlesnake is out
Dignatas and Orange play another Bo1 - Loser is out? So concievably - If you send LGD/IG/DK/Tonfu to losers in these first 2 winners days, they could be one game upset right out of the money by a single game loss? It just seems like 8 teams get eliminated almost immediately with a minimum of 3 games played.
Example would be.
Navi Beats Orange - Sends orange to LB round 2.
Dignatas beats Rattlesnake - Rattlesnake is out
Dignatas and Orange play another Bo1 - Loser is out? So concievably - If you send LGD/IG/DK/Tonfu to losers in these first 2 winners days, they could be one game upset right out of the money by a single game loss? It just seems like 8 teams get eliminated almost immediately with a minimum of 3 games played.
Yeah, loser's bracket is a crap shoot, it's not the place to be.
I think last year Navi started 0-6 or something close to that, then went undefeated in the loser's bracket, including defeating as-of-then undefeated LGD (15-0 or there abouts), to make it to the grand finals.
How about the Alliance rosh bait?
word, navi was never in the losers bracket. they started poorly in the group stages, barely making it to start in the winners bracket.
And it's all in the same day, too. So you could be flying high as 14-0 Alliance going into Thursday, get upset by LGD.cn in the first round of the winners bracket, and then knocked out of the tournament in a best of one a couple hours later.
- 11,313
- 2,419
Well what he means I think is that it's potentially easier for a worse team to cause an upset in a bo1 than it would be in a bo3, so it gives an edge to shittier teams to reach top8. I think it's kinda stupid too and wish they had started bo3 at round2 instead of round4 but eh.
Dandain
Trakanon Raider
- 2,092
- 917
Pyros has it, MUFC for all their 0-14 and an almost certainty that they could not win 2 out of 3 games against any other team in the tourney is just 2 wins away from 8th place. Alliance, who's 14-0 is just 3 games away from being knocked out of the tournament. With the volatility of a Bo1 format dictating who gets into top 8 and who doesn't, it really does give the shitty teams an easier way. It blows hard for the good teams, the 4 top 8 losers could go out - this likely won't happen, but what if things turned out like this.
Alliance, Fanatic, Navi, DK all win.
This sends down IG/Tongfu/LGD/Orange to losers round 2. Lets say the most stupid shit in the world goes down.
Rattlesnake, Mouz, VP, and MUFC all win their volatile best of 1's. Lets say the most stupid shit again happens and they all win.
Now they are top 8, and we'll end up with some shitty fucking best of 3's which these teams 99% of the time will not win, the bo1 is probably more like 15/20% chance. They only need to strike lightning in a bottle twice and the rest of this tournament would have an absolute pile of shitty games because those 4 teams have an infinitely better chance of winning 2 bo1's in a row with pocket strats than beating any of the top 8 teams in a best of 3. For 5 days of tournament games this was ill conceived, it gives no safety net to the winners bracket losers for their group stage performance. It nearly guarantees that at least 1 or more of those winners bracket teams will lose in an upset in losers round 2 and we'll have 1 team post massively better results than their below average performances in the group stage should allow. If nothing else the winners bracket teams should not be put into such a volatile format. Winners round 1 and losers round 2 have the most potential to impact on the results of the entire tournament in an excessively volatile way.
Alliance, Fanatic, Navi, DK all win.
This sends down IG/Tongfu/LGD/Orange to losers round 2. Lets say the most stupid shit in the world goes down.
Rattlesnake, Mouz, VP, and MUFC all win their volatile best of 1's. Lets say the most stupid shit again happens and they all win.
Now they are top 8, and we'll end up with some shitty fucking best of 3's which these teams 99% of the time will not win, the bo1 is probably more like 15/20% chance. They only need to strike lightning in a bottle twice and the rest of this tournament would have an absolute pile of shitty games because those 4 teams have an infinitely better chance of winning 2 bo1's in a row with pocket strats than beating any of the top 8 teams in a best of 3. For 5 days of tournament games this was ill conceived, it gives no safety net to the winners bracket losers for their group stage performance. It nearly guarantees that at least 1 or more of those winners bracket teams will lose in an upset in losers round 2 and we'll have 1 team post massively better results than their below average performances in the group stage should allow. If nothing else the winners bracket teams should not be put into such a volatile format. Winners round 1 and losers round 2 have the most potential to impact on the results of the entire tournament in an excessively volatile way.
Chickenpants
N00b
- 193
- 0
I understand what you're saying in all of this, but I still think it's pretty silly to suggest that it's better to be in a position where you can go home after 1 game loss than to be in a position where it takes at least 3 game losses to be knocked out.
Let's flip it around and say Alliance drops 2 games in their first round and MUFC wins their first game. Now both teams are in the same position where 1 loss and you're out, but MUFC is still fighting an uphill battle and having to face Alliance while Alliance starts to face teams that are much easier than LGD and DK/iG. This is what MUFC has been waiting for; to pull out their Anti-[A]dmiral Bulldog strat!
Can upsets happen?? Sure, that's why the games are played and that's what makes this fun, but it's still infinitely better to be sitting in the winner's bracket than the losers bracket.
On another note: I guess my courier is up to 186 views. Has there even been this many games played?
Elerion
N00b
- 735
- 46
It's not better to be in the loser's bracket, but it devalues the performance in the preliminaries. The top teams from the prelims have proven themselves to be consistently strong, and it's silly that they can be knocked out by losing a BO3 against one of the top teams and then a BO1 against one of the bottom teams. BO1s are notoriously random, and any team in this tournament can easily win a BO1 against any other just through luck of the draw.
Dandain
Trakanon Raider
- 2,092
- 917
You're missing the point, the point is for a shitty team a best of 1 gauntlet is a superior path to the trophy than best of 3 or best of 5 series. MUFC is in a better position given their ability being in losers because it is a best of 1, if losers was a best of 3 then mufc will virtually never advance. But in a best of one? 10-15-20% of the time they advance. Hence the format favors them because in a best of 3 they advance maybe 1 out of 100, best of 1? 10 out of a 100 or 15. Obviously this is numbers out of the ass, but 1 game is volatile and if your goal is to find the best dota team in the world, subjecting them to best of 1's is the quickest way to guarantee the best team does not have the best opportunity to win.
I never argued that it was better to start in losers, what I argued was that LR1/LR2 have a format that favors the worst team and not the best team and doesn't that defeat the point of finding the best team? The International should be like the NBA playoffs - you've got to prove you're the best team across a multiple game series because you are playing against and with the best players and teams in the world. The International should not be like the NCAA tournament which is full of amateur players - The NCAA tournament allows for Cinderella stories because there is absolutely no way NC state wins the national championship in a best of series set of games, but can they win 6 individual games in a row if all the stars align.
It's a problem with the seeding. It's good teams against other good teams regardless of if you were 4th or 1st in group, one of them invariably has to go down into a LB where it's one and done, and frankly their performances in group stage, for every 1-4 seed, is too good to be forced into that kind of predicament. They should have at least earned the right to be playing bo3 in the rest of the tournament. Similarly teams like TL and Dignitas don't deserve that fate either.
If it's a matter of managing time I'd be in favor of flat out eliminating shitters like MUFC or the entire bottom 4 and letting everything be bo3
If it's a matter of managing time I'd be in favor of flat out eliminating shitters like MUFC or the entire bottom 4 and letting everything be bo3
