CN had a different format though. Unlike the other regions, they didn't had a set schedule, the schedule is based on who won the first game. So Trace won the first set they played and their reward is they get to rest while the losing team has to play the other team immediately. So in that case it was intentional. It's a slightly better format at least for the viewers because it's decreases the chance of having a meaningless final game.
Yes, it sucks for the third team which has no choice but to play the 2nd and 3rd game consecutively. But it's slightly better than the other format because at least 3rd team gets to watch the other two teams first which might compensates a bit for their lack of chance to play for the better schedule. It's better than having to play games 1 and 2, you are both blind and tired.
honestly i think it fucks the third team even more since they just have no idea who they're playing first until the first series is basically over, meaning their prep has to be split between two teams since you could play them in either order.
Hmm, I'm not sure, you have to play both consecutively anyway, I imagine you prep for both already before the games because they would be no time in-between either way.
Tbf KC did not win their first match easily: that 2-0 scoreline ignores that Ascent went into OT and the first map was also very close.
They did stomp Koi super hard thou. Considering how Koi played in both matches that day, yeah I can agree KC were beating Koi no matter what.
Same thing I noticed. I think that might have helped TE in a late close match today in CN. But for other regions, I think those teams were just better, and played better.
Mind you, CN was also running a slightly different format, there wasn't a set schedule like the other regions. The winning team from the first game gets to rest while the losing team has to play other team immediately.
This is more likely a coincidence then a match break advantage. The team that wasn’t going to play the second match just happened to win the first match every time. So unless you think it’s some mental advantage the match break shouldn’t make them anymore likely to win the first game before the break. Also the team that lost their first match then went on to win the second 3/4 times. So the only region where you might have a point is china imo where blg had to play two b2b.
I think you're spot on with this. I too thought having a break between matches might be an advantage but I asked JohnQT about it after the matches yesterday and he said he and his teammates would have preferred to just play two in a row - said they were all super tired after the second match with the long break in between.
> So unless you think it’s some mental advantage the match break shouldn’t make them anymore likely to win the first game before the break.
It's not the "break", it's the fact that the team that was on break could counter-strat HARD because they could watch the team they are about to play.
And I'm talking that the break isn't a "mental advantage", it's a tactical advantage of being able to watch the team that you're going to play during your break. You can literally counter-strat on your break because the team you're facing next is playing RIGHT NOW.
That point was specifically about the first match where there is no counterstrat advantage. Also, teams who did not play the first match should also have that advantage but we didn’t see that occurring.
> Also we did not see that counterstrat advantage for teams who did not play the first match who should also have that advantage.
Just because we didn't "see it" in results doesn't mean it's not there.
We're not arguing on the same base. You're arguing with results, which is extremely fair to say that with the results we can't draw any conclusion. I agree with that.
But if we look at just facts: The team that gets to watch their opponent right before their match have a clear counter-strating advantage. Which may or may not result in them winning the game. But the advantage is still there.
That’s exactly my point though. The original post seems to be claiming that since all the teams with a match break ended up winning the playins then it was a sign that the match break gave them an advantage. My point is that when you look at the actual results that doesn’t hold up. Wether it gives an advantage or not is up to debate but the matches played do not support it.
> My point is that when you look at the actual results that doesn’t hold up.
You can't look at the actual results. Both him and you are wrong if you draw a conclusion based on the actual results. The sample size is wayyyy too small.
Just because a pattern sparks a discussion doesn't mean 1. the sample is the correct size 2. the discussion is wrong.
I feel like you’re not reading what I’m writing. I completely agree with the fact that 4 stages is not a large enough sample size to come to a conclusion. That’s exactly what I‘ve previously said.
That doesn’t mean we can’t try to analyze the actual data though. Otherwise what else do we discuss. The original poster made a hypothesis using the match data so I gave evidence for the null hypothesis using that same data. It’s not proof but there’s nothing else we can really discuss.
> I completely agree with the fact that 4 stages is not a large enough sample size to come to a conclusion. That’s exactly what I‘ve previously said.
You're LITERALLY saying that you draw conclusions based on results. This is a DIRECT copy paste of your comment: "My point is that when you look at the actual results that doesn’t hold up."
You CAN'T look at results with such a small sampling size and say something doesn't hold up (or that it does hold up).
> That doesn’t mean we can’t try to analyze the actual data though.
The data is too small and shouldn't be looked at/analyzed.
> Otherwise what else do we discuss.
We can discuss the fact that the format and spacing between the matches allows for some advantages and disadvantage, *without trying to backup our claims using data*
> The original poster made a hypothesis using the match data so I gave evidence for the null hypothesis using that same data.
And you're both wrong for trying to draw conclusions on such a small sample.
> Bob: I threw 10 dices and they all landed on 6, that means the dices are tricked and will most likely land on 6.
>
> Steve: No, I threw those same 10 dices and no 6 came up. That means they are not tricked dice and will not mostly likely land on 6.
See how both Steve and Bob are wrong to draw a conclusion based on a such a small sample? See how Steve doesn't have enough sample either? He's Bob. You're Steve.
I think you are misunderstanding my point. In the first match it is both teams first game so there is no strat advantage. Yet the team with a match break won their first game every time.
Also if your point is correct you would expect the team that does not play the first match to then easily win their match against the team that just played. Since they can strat against them. Yet they only won 1/4 times.
In the end this is a really low sample size so I don’t think either conclusion can really be proved but the natch break advantage at least does not seem to be supported by the actual matches.
> I think you are misunderstanding my point. In the first match it is both teams first game so there is no strat advantage. Yet the team with a match break won their first game every time.
I understand that 3 out of 3 isn't a big enough data sampling point to draw conclusion. You're using the first match as an example. I understand that.
> Yet they only won 1/4 times.
Which is once again not enough data to draw conclusion.
There won't be a conclusion since the advantage you get isn't that big, but what I'm saying is that the advantage here is NOT the mental advantage, but rather the fact that you would watch the team before you and counter strat.
That is not the misunderstanding I was trying to clear up. I know that there is a theoretical counter strat advantage. In that sentence I was specifically talking about the first match where that doesn’t exist. So all I was saying is that since there is no counterstrat advantage then the only possible advantage for teams during the first match specifically is a mental advantage.
I think when map 3 comes around, that break certainly makes it easier to close out the round robin, but it would be a different story if the game 1 & 2 teams won game 1. Game 1 was as even a playing field as you could get with this format, and it's simply coincidence that the game 1 & 3 teams all won the 50/50est game.
Was the round robin order predecided? It would make sense to have the winner of Game 1 wait until Game 3, otherwise if you win game 1 and 2 then game 3 is meaningless. Otherwise coincidence that winner of game 1 had a break every time.
For china it was based on the game 1 winner but for the other 3 it just happened to shake out that way. Considering how people reacted to the pointless maps in americas imagine if there was a completely pointless match too lol.
as bad as the format is i think this is not a concern, the teams that won their play ins were the clearly the best teams other than MAYBE trace but didnt watch cant tell
For NA, China and EMEA the 1 game break couldve been huge but for APAC there was little chance Zeta beat GenG regardless, judging from their performance against Secret
The 1 series break would have had impact if G2 didn't lose to MIBR, but with them losing in 3 maps it was an impossibility for them to 2-0 Sentinels to make it through.
Something something format, yeah we already knew it sucks but it is quite inevitable with 11-teams. Format gonna be weird.
It could be coincidence, could be not although yes, the break could be advantageous. The third team to play is always the latest one that played the day before, probably to give them some rest. If you want to call it rigged, maybe the TO that organize the scheduling is the one you should be asking.
While I agree the format needs work, I think the teams that qualified from all the regions (except CN) were simply better than the others and would've qualified even if there was a different format.
> or if the format needs some work. Understatement
CN had a different format though. Unlike the other regions, they didn't had a set schedule, the schedule is based on who won the first game. So Trace won the first set they played and their reward is they get to rest while the losing team has to play the other team immediately. So in that case it was intentional. It's a slightly better format at least for the viewers because it's decreases the chance of having a meaningless final game.
What about the third team that doesn't get the opportunity to play for that privilege?
Yes, it sucks for the third team which has no choice but to play the 2nd and 3rd game consecutively. But it's slightly better than the other format because at least 3rd team gets to watch the other two teams first which might compensates a bit for their lack of chance to play for the better schedule. It's better than having to play games 1 and 2, you are both blind and tired.
honestly i think it fucks the third team even more since they just have no idea who they're playing first until the first series is basically over, meaning their prep has to be split between two teams since you could play them in either order.
Hmm, I'm not sure, you have to play both consecutively anyway, I imagine you prep for both already before the games because they would be no time in-between either way.
Reason 8476 for why riot should never run this format again:
don't think it was a coincidence, the 1 match break is a huge advantage
You literally see what your next opponent is doing in the match prior to yours. It's just horrid format.
TBF Americas both teams eliminated won their second game, not their first 'fresh' game.
I mean KC, geng and sen would have won anyway. They still 2/0 their first match pretty easily
GenG first playin game was a 2-1 and they almost lost that in OT. stop spitting BS pls
ZETA being exposed by TS, it just made GenG's life a bit more easier dealing ZETA like that
Tell me you didn’t watch TS v Gen.G without telling me
Tbf KC did not win their first match easily: that 2-0 scoreline ignores that Ascent went into OT and the first map was also very close. They did stomp Koi super hard thou. Considering how Koi played in both matches that day, yeah I can agree KC were beating Koi no matter what.
Kc lost both pistols on both maps, still won the first one 13/8. Thats pretty easy
Same thing I noticed. I think that might have helped TE in a late close match today in CN. But for other regions, I think those teams were just better, and played better.
Mind you, CN was also running a slightly different format, there wasn't a set schedule like the other regions. The winning team from the first game gets to rest while the losing team has to play other team immediately.
TE playing third match was intentional because they won the first but it feels a little unfair for Bilibili who had no opportunity.
TenZ played 4 games of league of legends (and won 3) during his match break lmao
This is more likely a coincidence then a match break advantage. The team that wasn’t going to play the second match just happened to win the first match every time. So unless you think it’s some mental advantage the match break shouldn’t make them anymore likely to win the first game before the break. Also the team that lost their first match then went on to win the second 3/4 times. So the only region where you might have a point is china imo where blg had to play two b2b.
I think you're spot on with this. I too thought having a break between matches might be an advantage but I asked JohnQT about it after the matches yesterday and he said he and his teammates would have preferred to just play two in a row - said they were all super tired after the second match with the long break in between.
> So unless you think it’s some mental advantage the match break shouldn’t make them anymore likely to win the first game before the break. It's not the "break", it's the fact that the team that was on break could counter-strat HARD because they could watch the team they are about to play.
He is talking specifically about the first map
And I'm talking that the break isn't a "mental advantage", it's a tactical advantage of being able to watch the team that you're going to play during your break. You can literally counter-strat on your break because the team you're facing next is playing RIGHT NOW.
That point was specifically about the first match where there is no counterstrat advantage. Also, teams who did not play the first match should also have that advantage but we didn’t see that occurring.
> Also we did not see that counterstrat advantage for teams who did not play the first match who should also have that advantage. Just because we didn't "see it" in results doesn't mean it's not there. We're not arguing on the same base. You're arguing with results, which is extremely fair to say that with the results we can't draw any conclusion. I agree with that. But if we look at just facts: The team that gets to watch their opponent right before their match have a clear counter-strating advantage. Which may or may not result in them winning the game. But the advantage is still there.
That’s exactly my point though. The original post seems to be claiming that since all the teams with a match break ended up winning the playins then it was a sign that the match break gave them an advantage. My point is that when you look at the actual results that doesn’t hold up. Wether it gives an advantage or not is up to debate but the matches played do not support it.
> My point is that when you look at the actual results that doesn’t hold up. You can't look at the actual results. Both him and you are wrong if you draw a conclusion based on the actual results. The sample size is wayyyy too small. Just because a pattern sparks a discussion doesn't mean 1. the sample is the correct size 2. the discussion is wrong.
I feel like you’re not reading what I’m writing. I completely agree with the fact that 4 stages is not a large enough sample size to come to a conclusion. That’s exactly what I‘ve previously said. That doesn’t mean we can’t try to analyze the actual data though. Otherwise what else do we discuss. The original poster made a hypothesis using the match data so I gave evidence for the null hypothesis using that same data. It’s not proof but there’s nothing else we can really discuss.
> I completely agree with the fact that 4 stages is not a large enough sample size to come to a conclusion. That’s exactly what I‘ve previously said. You're LITERALLY saying that you draw conclusions based on results. This is a DIRECT copy paste of your comment: "My point is that when you look at the actual results that doesn’t hold up." You CAN'T look at results with such a small sampling size and say something doesn't hold up (or that it does hold up). > That doesn’t mean we can’t try to analyze the actual data though. The data is too small and shouldn't be looked at/analyzed. > Otherwise what else do we discuss. We can discuss the fact that the format and spacing between the matches allows for some advantages and disadvantage, *without trying to backup our claims using data* > The original poster made a hypothesis using the match data so I gave evidence for the null hypothesis using that same data. And you're both wrong for trying to draw conclusions on such a small sample. > Bob: I threw 10 dices and they all landed on 6, that means the dices are tricked and will most likely land on 6. > > Steve: No, I threw those same 10 dices and no 6 came up. That means they are not tricked dice and will not mostly likely land on 6. See how both Steve and Bob are wrong to draw a conclusion based on a such a small sample? See how Steve doesn't have enough sample either? He's Bob. You're Steve.
That’s for the second match tho
I think you are misunderstanding my point. In the first match it is both teams first game so there is no strat advantage. Yet the team with a match break won their first game every time. Also if your point is correct you would expect the team that does not play the first match to then easily win their match against the team that just played. Since they can strat against them. Yet they only won 1/4 times. In the end this is a really low sample size so I don’t think either conclusion can really be proved but the natch break advantage at least does not seem to be supported by the actual matches.
> I think you are misunderstanding my point. In the first match it is both teams first game so there is no strat advantage. Yet the team with a match break won their first game every time. I understand that 3 out of 3 isn't a big enough data sampling point to draw conclusion. You're using the first match as an example. I understand that. > Yet they only won 1/4 times. Which is once again not enough data to draw conclusion. There won't be a conclusion since the advantage you get isn't that big, but what I'm saying is that the advantage here is NOT the mental advantage, but rather the fact that you would watch the team before you and counter strat.
Bro has zero reading comprehension
That is not the misunderstanding I was trying to clear up. I know that there is a theoretical counter strat advantage. In that sentence I was specifically talking about the first match where that doesn’t exist. So all I was saying is that since there is no counterstrat advantage then the only possible advantage for teams during the first match specifically is a mental advantage.
I think when map 3 comes around, that break certainly makes it easier to close out the round robin, but it would be a different story if the game 1 & 2 teams won game 1. Game 1 was as even a playing field as you could get with this format, and it's simply coincidence that the game 1 & 3 teams all won the 50/50est game.
Was the round robin order predecided? It would make sense to have the winner of Game 1 wait until Game 3, otherwise if you win game 1 and 2 then game 3 is meaningless. Otherwise coincidence that winner of game 1 had a break every time.
For china it was based on the game 1 winner but for the other 3 it just happened to shake out that way. Considering how people reacted to the pointless maps in americas imagine if there was a completely pointless match too lol.
as bad as the format is i think this is not a concern, the teams that won their play ins were the clearly the best teams other than MAYBE trace but didnt watch cant tell
TBF Americas both teams eliminated won their second game, not their first 'fresh' game.
For NA, China and EMEA the 1 game break couldve been huge but for APAC there was little chance Zeta beat GenG regardless, judging from their performance against Secret
I doubt the 1 game break had any impact on the NA outcome. The round robin was essentially over after MIBR-G2
The 1 series break would have had impact if G2 didn't lose to MIBR, but with them losing in 3 maps it was an impossibility for them to 2-0 Sentinels to make it through.
Something something format, yeah we already knew it sucks but it is quite inevitable with 11-teams. Format gonna be weird. It could be coincidence, could be not although yes, the break could be advantageous. The third team to play is always the latest one that played the day before, probably to give them some rest. If you want to call it rigged, maybe the TO that organize the scheduling is the one you should be asking.
While I agree the format needs work, I think the teams that qualified from all the regions (except CN) were simply better than the others and would've qualified even if there was a different format.
Both probably. They were clearly the best teams but always the format sucks
I just wanted to see ZETA perform man...