What I am suggesting that his statement doesn’t back up 7 games, it backs up an concept of ‘more’ that even if we agree with it, doesn’t clear up anything.
Lets say i agree with his statement… what does that mean excatly? ‘more’ backs up 7 the same as it does 11 or 15. To me (and a lot of people, as seen by the rules change) 7 is ‘obviously’ too much, much less 11.
If someone believes that 7 is special somehow, then there should be something that backs up that specific number, and ‘more’ doesn’t cut it.
In a double-elimination tournament, people who lose twice can no longer play. When it comes down to the last two, one is from the Winner’s bracket with zero losses. The other is from the Loser’s bracket, with one loss. In order for the one from Loser’s to win the tournament, he must make the one from Winner’s lose twice. The one from Loser’s still only has one loss, and the one from Winner’s now has two losses, and is eliminated. However, if the Winner’s player beats the other one, it goes like this: the one from Loser’s now has two losses, and the one from Winner’s is undefeated, and wins the tournament.
You can look at it like this: double-elimination finals always have someone with zero losses, and another with one loss. First one to eliminate the other wins.
I really believe that a best of 11 would be even better. We can learn more stuff from the advanced players, they might pull off some tricks that appear only once in a while and it reduces even more the chances of luck getting into play. But its les emotion for the crowd(each game worths less).
I think that the right point would be as games as possible, considering of course the time constraints of the tourney. I only used best of seven as an example because it is pretty common.
By the way, I consider best of 5 alright. I thought it was best of 3 which, IMO, is too short for the finals.
If they are advanced players, beta and I’m asuming they are since it’s the finals ;p (and of evl2k3 no less!) They will be able to pull off whatever they have to in within the 5 rounds. More, and they’d just be doing the same stuff yet in more rounds. AND it’d get boring.
I disagree. There are plays that can only be used in specific situations, situation that dont happen in every game.
Also, the players can change characters and even entire teams, which might even change their styles of play.
Look closely at vids from any tourney finals. You can see different tactics at each one of them. Even the setups for critical points(what one does to get an ahvb or a storm/sent combo) are often easily distinguished between different vids.
Well, thats what I think. If youre watching to entertainment, you might get bored. If youre watching to learn, mostly wont.
BTW: Read Seths article - you can lead a scrub to water but you cant make them think - I think there it has a lot to do with my point of view
Even if you watch learn you’d be bored because it’s the same people doing the same thing over and over again.
A very good and advanced player will not only think about comboing or whatever, but the actual setup. Within 3 games (the minimum) he’ll do it hands down. I don’t believe that anyone in the finals would not be capable of that.
yea… they could change characters… a best of 5 match is defenitely fine though IMO, I mean if you lose 3 of 5, unless it was unbelievably close, you’d most likely lose the best of 50 match aswell
Why do you need players to show you a move for every specific situation? especially in the current games where you can test every damn situation in the game at home?. Maybe that’s too much work i guess, we should hold the top players hostage and force them through boredom to unleash their secret tricks they’ve been hiding (or more specifically, that we’ve been to lazy to find)… I’ve read the articles, i’m not sure you have, i think your just throwing it in as a defense for something your not even sure about.
Your also saying that many tournaments (ECC, all of japan, evo) are not only decided by luck, but that somehow we can’t learn from them?? Is that all really what you meant?
I think your just going through a lot of work to defend what you are used to. It’s also funny that you feel it’s ok to just disregard several major US tournaments and all of japan to make your point.
i think when players use the counter characters, and still lose, it just shows that the player who won is better and is the true champion, but if he loses the 2nd match and goes on the 3rd game and the round goes on the the 3rd, then its all about skill
same logic goes for 3 outta 5, but 4 outta 7 i think goes more toward the players useing there best characters more often then useing counter characters
I think youre overanalyzing it.
I think that all these tourneys are great because they show so many diff possibilities and they would be greater with more matches, showing even more of the top players games.
I aint disregarding anything and I am not even defending anything with a lot of work. I just asked a question and statd tht I feel differently bout the subject
I got the impression that youre hating too much without a string reason for it. Be cool
My main point is that with more games we can see more stuff, and I am just asking why not.
About luck, it does hav an impact in every competition(or do you think that the best team wins at any soccer league in the world?)
With more games, you see less luck. But still luck can break a close tie or something, not make the worst player come looking like the best.
You can be mad all you want to, although I dont think thats necessary, but nobody gave me reason to change my mind, although I dont feel strongly towards the subject anyways, so Im ok with best of 5, and i would participat on a best of 1 tourney single elimination(japanese style) too, no problem.
Do you think less is more(japanesestyle tourneys are better?)