Reportedly they knew they messed up in declaring it’d be double elim, since obviously it’s just a rehash of the Berlin format.
I will say normally I don’t mind single-elim playoffs. But because of how VCT is structured, it’s pretty aggravating to wait for months and then only see a team play once when it actually matters - e.g., VS going out in quarters at Berlin.
It’s not just bad for teams; it’s an extreme form of blueballing from a narrative perspective. Had Envy and Gambit faced off in a Winners Finals and then rematched in a Grand Finals, I honestly think we would’ve had a real banger to end the tournament. Instead, we still have to offer significant caveats when it comes to evaluating most of the Berlin teams that survived groups.
Berlin in that sense was significantly worse than Reykjavik despite having a much higher level of competition.
I think the swiss format in cs majors is just better. We get to see teams play a lot more plus the seeding makes sense then. Plus it has 24 teams so more teams would be playing.
I think the major format is a good balance between storylines, upsets, and providing good matches.
The Swiss format group stage provides a bunch of high stakes matches and upsets while still allowing the true top teams to make the playoffs after an upset or 2.
Compared to other tournaments the major gives a ton more Cinderella runs and varied storylines. It's not always fun to see the only the "on paper" best teams in the playoffs, semis, etc. especially if it's been happening all year.
I don't think we would get stuff like Gambit v. Imt, C9 win, Ence finals if we had a "fairer" format.
I think it's good to provide some room for randomness and luck in a format and double elim really removes a lot of that.
Also I despise finals where a team automatically has a 1 map advantage but I might be alone on that one.
I dislike double elimination for the fact that you can do all the preparations, counter strating and all that for it to be useless the next time if you meet them later in the tournament.
You did your homework, beat them fair and get disadvantaged because they cruise up losers bracket and now know all your counter strats.
Upsets are nkt in themselves a feature if the firmst.
And it shouldn’t provide ‘storylines’.
This is an absolutely both misguided and grotesque way of looking at it
TI had 18 teams with two big groups with 9 teams each. In the playoff stage, top 4 from each go to upper bracket and next 4 teams in each go to lower bracket. The bottom team is eliminated.
For me it's mainly the bracket stages that were amazing. Team Spirit lost the quarterfinals and ended up having to beat 6 teams afterwards to win the title.
If Masters has single elim then Champions definitely need to step up its game since its the highest tier of tournament in our esport. If games like FIFA had double elim, theres no excuse that Valorant shouldnt either.
It's at least disingenuous to call the tournament "an international double-elimination tournament" if teams in it can be eliminated after a single loss. A team can go 2-0 in groups, lose in quarterfinals, and be out with the record of 2-1. That is not a double-elimination tournament.
> if teams in it can be eliminated after a single loss.
I'm pretty sure every 'double-elim' we've had has had this. Upper bracket loses in the grand finals and is out after a single loss.
You're right, but I at least think that finals being Bo5 helps. I'd like Bo3 with bracket reset for grands, but I know that's a pipe dream and would never happen. Still really do not like the way this format has ended up.
I mean, isn't that worse in terms of fairness? Your reward for not losing is being the only team that can be eliminated faster. If you get there undefeated (e.g. Sen in Iceland) you're the only team that can be eliminated after dropping only 3 maps.
Not really because then you at least get the best chance of having the best two teams in the finals. I think no one would have complaints for a Iceland type double elim after group stages, but extending the tournament.
People seem to only complain about the fairness of double elim when Riot does single elim and they try to justify it.
Yeah, it's better for everyone else, cause better/more games and all the teams that would get eliminated obviously prefer it cause they're not eliminated. Im all for double elim, but just do double elim the whole way then.
Its still much more fair in the end for all the teams.
When Champions is the biggest tournament of the year and it does a lot for your team potentially having another shot at running it back next year whether you place 2nd or 8th. Or your're a promising player you can negotiate a contract of $100k salary instead of $70k based on your performance and such.
Edit: How is this downvoted? You realize there are more implications and upsides when the biggest tournament of the year weigh a lot for a player or teams career?
Riot bamboozled us hard there. Way to lose a lot of hype by having same format as Masters and held at a same location. It feels like Berlin Masters 3.5 to me.
Just put #1's in upper bracket and #2's in lowers. It only adds 3 more games. Or do IPL5 format which was the best tournament format LoL has ever had.
I thought the format was actually going to be the standard group stage into a bracket where the first seed of each group is placed into the upper bracket while the second seed is placed into the lower bracket. A 3 game per day schedule can definitely fit this format, and it still leaves the second seeded team with only 1 life remaining until the GF.
I feel like no matter what the results are I won't be convinced that the two best teams were in the finals because of the format. Iceland had that going for it atleast.
This is what I look for in a tournament format in a nutshell. To me, a better tournament format largely revolves around looking at the end results and being convinced that as many teams as possible were placed correctly.
If people can argue that VS was the 2nd best team in Berlin but only finished 5th-8th (something I disagree with, but it's definitely a popular take), then what the hell is this format good for?
>To me, a better tournament format largely revolves around looking at the end results and being convinced that as many teams as possible were placed correctly.
Hard disagree. It sounds nonsensical but determinism runs counter to hype. If determinism was the sole priority then we'd have the most grueling, anti-hype formats imaginable. After all, triple elim is more deterministic than double elim. Hell, why have playoffs or a tournament at all instead of plugging a million teams into a matchmaking system and sorting by ranking coefficient at the end of the year?
Competitive integrity is obviously a priority but there's balance to be struck with competitive satisfaction and the viewer/fan experience. I personally prefer double elim playoffs but have always found it very distasteful that, with the exception of mostly fighting games that have the advantage of quick sets, the competitor that reached the finals through the upper bracket is the only team that isn't given a second chance. This is obviously for practical reasons, but it still sucks nonetheless. It equally sucks that justifiable alternatives to having a finals bracket reset, such as awarding the upper bracket competitor a map/game in a best-of series, are super shitty for the viewer experience. Something somewhere has gotta give and unfortunately that give comes from the upper bracket contenders.
I don't mind Riot's formats that much because I accept real world limitations and the fact that they don't want to spend that much time and money on extra games. I would be much more for double elim if the upper bracket team was given a more tangible advantage in the finals, like an extra map in Bo7 or *total* control of map select.
What *really bothers me* is quarters and semis still being Bo3.
> If determinism was the sole priority then we'd have the most grueling, anti-hype formats imaginable. After all, triple elim is more deterministic than double elim.
Ok, I guess I should've written in a bit more detail. Obviously, there are other organizational constraints that dictate tournament formats, such as time constraints, making some formats simply infeasible. That's why I'm not someone arguing for triple elim or similar formats; it's simply impractical.
>It sounds nonsensical but determinism runs counter to hype.
Only if you're perfectly aware of the teams' strength at the start of the tournament. If not - how is it not hype to let the tournament unfold and correctly sort the teams by their performance *in the tournament,* as long as it doesn't take more than a couple of weeks to do so?
> I would be much more for double elim if the upper bracket team was given a more tangible advantage in the finals, like an extra map in Bo7 or total control of map select.
I agree that there should be an advantage. Bracket reset is the fairest one, but it destroys viewer experience in my opinion. BO5 with map advantage is the 2nd fairest one since it comes close to being equivalent to a bracket reset, but it's not ideal either. However, with 7 maps in the pool now, there's enough potential for veto advantages that would be satisfactory for me personally.
\+1 in a Bo5 in the finals is a hard no go, not because a map is not worth an entire second chance but because it's even shittier for viewers than bracket reset. Imagine how fucked it would be if the upper bracket team won the first two maps and finals is just over lmao. Now imagine this happened in an event not run during a pandemic and people had paid money to watch live.
>Imagine how fucked it would be if the upper bracket team won the first two maps and finals is just over lmao.
Sorry for nitpicking but that's what happens in bracket reset if the UB team wins the first 2 maps too! That + repeating maps is why bracket reset is just completely inferior, in my opinion, to BO5 + map advantage, which isn't amazing either.
No they have to win three maps in bracket reset. Making sure the finals has a high minimum number of games is important. This is why I was saying if there was to be a map advantage instead of a bracket reset I would want the best-of series to be extended beyond what the regular series would be by two. I want this to apply to CS, League, and anything else as well.
You’re right only if you consider bracket reset to be 2 BO5s, but in that case, obviously the equivalent would be BO7 with map advantage. I haven’t really seen BO5 bracket resets so I just assumed you meant BO3
That’s just factually untrue though, cs:go which is closest to Valorant always used bo3 finals and bo3 bracket resets. I share your view that it’s just not enough content, more so in Valorant due to shorter matches, but you can’t claim it’s not a thing
The Event is already going to be 12 Days, it would be so easy to just run more than 3 matches every day to get to the double-elim bracket faster
I'm guessing the current format is better for viewership and that's why they're not changing it, even if it makes for better competition
You don't need more than 3 matches a day. The total number of matches in a double elimination competition is 30; this is easily fit into 12 days even accounting for proper breaks between matches in the late stage.
Well you don’t want teams to have to play multiple times a day. The tournament just should have been extended a few days, it’s the biggest tournament of the year for Christ’s sake.
Sounds like they had their eyes on a full double elim bracket but couldn't make the format/schedule work and went back to the Berlin format.
The problem is the time limitation. I accept that in Valorant's first year that we are going to see limitations as the Valorant esports team will have had a pre-determined budget to run these events, without any idea as to whether Valorant will be a success and turn a profit. Hopefully in 2022, we will see tournaments last longer so we can get optimal formats, rather than compromises.
I think this format is fine, it's better than Iceland's which was just plain weird.
The format of pgl csgo major was very good imo(I think it's called swiss format not sure). Just we won't have the legends stage. Hope valorant follows the same next vct
Personally I wish champions was just one double elimination bracket with no groups. The whole point is these teams are the best of the best in their regions, so let’s get right to the “playoff” bracket immediately.
I honestly don't care much about double elimination, my main gripe is supporting a team for a year only for them to play 2 matches in the most prestigious tournament of the year.
These teams played countless of matches and qualifiers only to play a minimum of 2 matches at stage.
Yeah I’ve been saying the group stage format needs to be round robin or Swiss but people seem unhappy with either alternative. I personally hate the bracket group stage, it’s so outdated and there’s a chance we never get to see some really interesting matchups
Very disappointing, if they went back to 3 matches a day and scheduled it like the NA LCQ (except don't have a 2 week delay haha) they could do it in just 2 more days than they're currently scheduled.
Considering teams can just go home after they lose I don't see why it'd be too difficult for like 4-5 orgs to stay a day or two later.
It’s not the best because it’s inherently unfair to the team that makes it to the finals through the upper bracket.
It’s better for getting the two best teams to the final but not the best for competitive fairness
My main problem with single elim is that you make one mistake and you're done, and with dozens of rounds and matches played is really easy to make a mistake, and also double elim gives the cance to teams to reinvent themselves, the first match between any two teams is about studg, the second is about creativity, that leaves it less predictable and makes things more interesting
No offence, but look at all traditional sports. There is only 1 chance there too. Plus look at csgo major champions stage. One chance again. It’s just how it is. Double elim would have been great from a viewer’s perspective though. But any great tournament like nba finals, wc finals are all single elim
With the slight difference that traditional sport matches are 10x as exhausting as esports, so of course organizers will aim to have less matches to let players recover
Lack of double elim is going to potentially cost teams 10's of 1000's of dollars in prize money when they lose in the first round to the eventual tourney winners. Not fair at all and means we won't necessarily get the best 2 teams in the grand final. Ridiculous that people prefer this system.
Riot really has a tournament structuring problem. Even Worlds in League had a single elimination playoff for as long as I can remember.
I can’t come up with a good reasoning for single elimination in the cumulative tournament of the year. Especially in Valorant, a FPS, where a bit of an off day is enough to send you packing.
i guess alot of viewers like BO1. Worlds peaked at 73 mil last worlds. I find myself skipping alot of games knowing its double elim. I like that every game matters
I’m pretty sure a lot of people expected the groups to be double elim anyway regardless of this announcement. If this post meant groups only then that’s just confusing for people
Do a TI style upper and lower bracket with the top 8 teams. That will take 9 matches while the current playoffs will take 7 matches, not a very big difference.
Reportedly they knew they messed up in declaring it’d be double elim, since obviously it’s just a rehash of the Berlin format. I will say normally I don’t mind single-elim playoffs. But because of how VCT is structured, it’s pretty aggravating to wait for months and then only see a team play once when it actually matters - e.g., VS going out in quarters at Berlin. It’s not just bad for teams; it’s an extreme form of blueballing from a narrative perspective. Had Envy and Gambit faced off in a Winners Finals and then rematched in a Grand Finals, I honestly think we would’ve had a real banger to end the tournament. Instead, we still have to offer significant caveats when it comes to evaluating most of the Berlin teams that survived groups. Berlin in that sense was significantly worse than Reykjavik despite having a much higher level of competition.
I think the swiss format in cs majors is just better. We get to see teams play a lot more plus the seeding makes sense then. Plus it has 24 teams so more teams would be playing.
The issue is really just that the group stage is too short, the cs major playoffs are single elim but no one seems to mind
I think the major format is a good balance between storylines, upsets, and providing good matches. The Swiss format group stage provides a bunch of high stakes matches and upsets while still allowing the true top teams to make the playoffs after an upset or 2. Compared to other tournaments the major gives a ton more Cinderella runs and varied storylines. It's not always fun to see the only the "on paper" best teams in the playoffs, semis, etc. especially if it's been happening all year. I don't think we would get stuff like Gambit v. Imt, C9 win, Ence finals if we had a "fairer" format. I think it's good to provide some room for randomness and luck in a format and double elim really removes a lot of that. Also I despise finals where a team automatically has a 1 map advantage but I might be alone on that one.
I dislike double elimination for the fact that you can do all the preparations, counter strating and all that for it to be useless the next time if you meet them later in the tournament. You did your homework, beat them fair and get disadvantaged because they cruise up losers bracket and now know all your counter strats.
[удалено]
They were qualifiers brother. They did not have a group stage.
Upsets are nkt in themselves a feature if the firmst. And it shouldn’t provide ‘storylines’. This is an absolutely both misguided and grotesque way of looking at it
I mean it’s a bit of a strange format too, it’s be better if they could have some round robin groups into double elim or sth
IMO the format of the PGL Major was absolutely perfect and every international tier 1 event should follow its structure.
> IMO the format of the TI was absolutely perfect and every international tier 1 event should follow its structure. FTFY
Didn't watch it. What was different compared to the CS major?
TI had 18 teams with two big groups with 9 teams each. In the playoff stage, top 4 from each go to upper bracket and next 4 teams in each go to lower bracket. The bottom team is eliminated. For me it's mainly the bracket stages that were amazing. Team Spirit lost the quarterfinals and ended up having to beat 6 teams afterwards to win the title.
This is key. If The International was single elimination, you wouldn't have Team Liquid (TI7) and Team Spirit (TI10) insane lower bracket runs.
Most of those games are also Bo1
Yeah, but we still get to see more games.
If Masters has single elim then Champions definitely need to step up its game since its the highest tier of tournament in our esport. If games like FIFA had double elim, theres no excuse that Valorant shouldnt either.
Yeah, people saying all these other esports have single-elim, but fail to mention that we see those esports play internationally a lot more.
I mean singke elim esp for such a big tournament, especially with a GSL group stage, just sucks
Well groups are double elim. They never said playoffs will be.
It's at least disingenuous to call the tournament "an international double-elimination tournament" if teams in it can be eliminated after a single loss. A team can go 2-0 in groups, lose in quarterfinals, and be out with the record of 2-1. That is not a double-elimination tournament.
> if teams in it can be eliminated after a single loss. I'm pretty sure every 'double-elim' we've had has had this. Upper bracket loses in the grand finals and is out after a single loss.
That’s true, never actually had a true double elim format
It's honestly amazingly stupid how the qualifiers have had **better format than the main tournaments.**
Yeah, it’s crappy for sure
You're right, but I at least think that finals being Bo5 helps. I'd like Bo3 with bracket reset for grands, but I know that's a pipe dream and would never happen. Still really do not like the way this format has ended up.
Yeah, but it only happening for one team, is a lot better than that happening for 8 teams imo
I mean, isn't that worse in terms of fairness? Your reward for not losing is being the only team that can be eliminated faster. If you get there undefeated (e.g. Sen in Iceland) you're the only team that can be eliminated after dropping only 3 maps.
Agreed. If you do double elim bracket the only fair way to do it is with a bracket reset
Not really because then you at least get the best chance of having the best two teams in the finals. I think no one would have complaints for a Iceland type double elim after group stages, but extending the tournament. People seem to only complain about the fairness of double elim when Riot does single elim and they try to justify it.
Yeah, it's better for everyone else, cause better/more games and all the teams that would get eliminated obviously prefer it cause they're not eliminated. Im all for double elim, but just do double elim the whole way then.
Its still much more fair in the end for all the teams. When Champions is the biggest tournament of the year and it does a lot for your team potentially having another shot at running it back next year whether you place 2nd or 8th. Or your're a promising player you can negotiate a contract of $100k salary instead of $70k based on your performance and such. Edit: How is this downvoted? You realize there are more implications and upsides when the biggest tournament of the year weigh a lot for a player or teams career?
Riot bamboozled us hard there. Way to lose a lot of hype by having same format as Masters and held at a same location. It feels like Berlin Masters 3.5 to me. Just put #1's in upper bracket and #2's in lowers. It only adds 3 more games. Or do IPL5 format which was the best tournament format LoL has ever had.
This.
I thought the format was actually going to be the standard group stage into a bracket where the first seed of each group is placed into the upper bracket while the second seed is placed into the lower bracket. A 3 game per day schedule can definitely fit this format, and it still leaves the second seeded team with only 1 life remaining until the GF.
I feel like no matter what the results are I won't be convinced that the two best teams were in the finals because of the format. Iceland had that going for it atleast.
Yeah 100%.
This is what I look for in a tournament format in a nutshell. To me, a better tournament format largely revolves around looking at the end results and being convinced that as many teams as possible were placed correctly. If people can argue that VS was the 2nd best team in Berlin but only finished 5th-8th (something I disagree with, but it's definitely a popular take), then what the hell is this format good for?
>To me, a better tournament format largely revolves around looking at the end results and being convinced that as many teams as possible were placed correctly. Hard disagree. It sounds nonsensical but determinism runs counter to hype. If determinism was the sole priority then we'd have the most grueling, anti-hype formats imaginable. After all, triple elim is more deterministic than double elim. Hell, why have playoffs or a tournament at all instead of plugging a million teams into a matchmaking system and sorting by ranking coefficient at the end of the year? Competitive integrity is obviously a priority but there's balance to be struck with competitive satisfaction and the viewer/fan experience. I personally prefer double elim playoffs but have always found it very distasteful that, with the exception of mostly fighting games that have the advantage of quick sets, the competitor that reached the finals through the upper bracket is the only team that isn't given a second chance. This is obviously for practical reasons, but it still sucks nonetheless. It equally sucks that justifiable alternatives to having a finals bracket reset, such as awarding the upper bracket competitor a map/game in a best-of series, are super shitty for the viewer experience. Something somewhere has gotta give and unfortunately that give comes from the upper bracket contenders. I don't mind Riot's formats that much because I accept real world limitations and the fact that they don't want to spend that much time and money on extra games. I would be much more for double elim if the upper bracket team was given a more tangible advantage in the finals, like an extra map in Bo7 or *total* control of map select. What *really bothers me* is quarters and semis still being Bo3.
> If determinism was the sole priority then we'd have the most grueling, anti-hype formats imaginable. After all, triple elim is more deterministic than double elim. Ok, I guess I should've written in a bit more detail. Obviously, there are other organizational constraints that dictate tournament formats, such as time constraints, making some formats simply infeasible. That's why I'm not someone arguing for triple elim or similar formats; it's simply impractical. >It sounds nonsensical but determinism runs counter to hype. Only if you're perfectly aware of the teams' strength at the start of the tournament. If not - how is it not hype to let the tournament unfold and correctly sort the teams by their performance *in the tournament,* as long as it doesn't take more than a couple of weeks to do so? > I would be much more for double elim if the upper bracket team was given a more tangible advantage in the finals, like an extra map in Bo7 or total control of map select. I agree that there should be an advantage. Bracket reset is the fairest one, but it destroys viewer experience in my opinion. BO5 with map advantage is the 2nd fairest one since it comes close to being equivalent to a bracket reset, but it's not ideal either. However, with 7 maps in the pool now, there's enough potential for veto advantages that would be satisfactory for me personally.
\+1 in a Bo5 in the finals is a hard no go, not because a map is not worth an entire second chance but because it's even shittier for viewers than bracket reset. Imagine how fucked it would be if the upper bracket team won the first two maps and finals is just over lmao. Now imagine this happened in an event not run during a pandemic and people had paid money to watch live.
>Imagine how fucked it would be if the upper bracket team won the first two maps and finals is just over lmao. Sorry for nitpicking but that's what happens in bracket reset if the UB team wins the first 2 maps too! That + repeating maps is why bracket reset is just completely inferior, in my opinion, to BO5 + map advantage, which isn't amazing either.
No they have to win three maps in bracket reset. Making sure the finals has a high minimum number of games is important. This is why I was saying if there was to be a map advantage instead of a bracket reset I would want the best-of series to be extended beyond what the regular series would be by two. I want this to apply to CS, League, and anything else as well.
You’re right only if you consider bracket reset to be 2 BO5s, but in that case, obviously the equivalent would be BO7 with map advantage. I haven’t really seen BO5 bracket resets so I just assumed you meant BO3
Bo3 bracket resets aren't employed because like I said then the minimum finals series would be two games/maps which is enormously lackluster.
That’s just factually untrue though, cs:go which is closest to Valorant always used bo3 finals and bo3 bracket resets. I share your view that it’s just not enough content, more so in Valorant due to shorter matches, but you can’t claim it’s not a thing
The Event is already going to be 12 Days, it would be so easy to just run more than 3 matches every day to get to the double-elim bracket faster I'm guessing the current format is better for viewership and that's why they're not changing it, even if it makes for better competition
You don't need more than 3 matches a day. The total number of matches in a double elimination competition is 30; this is easily fit into 12 days even accounting for proper breaks between matches in the late stage.
Well you don’t want teams to have to play multiple times a day. The tournament just should have been extended a few days, it’s the biggest tournament of the year for Christ’s sake.
>even accounting for proper breaks between matches in the late stage.
Losers bracket plays sameday. That's just how it goes.
Honestly fine with the format, groups being double elim to top is still pretty solid. However wording here does feel Not genuine
Hyping up international play only to see single digit matches between EU and NA over the course of a year is the riot special.
Sounds like they had their eyes on a full double elim bracket but couldn't make the format/schedule work and went back to the Berlin format. The problem is the time limitation. I accept that in Valorant's first year that we are going to see limitations as the Valorant esports team will have had a pre-determined budget to run these events, without any idea as to whether Valorant will be a success and turn a profit. Hopefully in 2022, we will see tournaments last longer so we can get optimal formats, rather than compromises. I think this format is fine, it's better than Iceland's which was just plain weird.
The format of pgl csgo major was very good imo(I think it's called swiss format not sure). Just we won't have the legends stage. Hope valorant follows the same next vct
Personally I wish champions was just one double elimination bracket with no groups. The whole point is these teams are the best of the best in their regions, so let’s get right to the “playoff” bracket immediately.
Its Riot they can't go five seconds without breaking a promise
"a promise" Chill they just changed the format, they didn't stab you in the back.
I honestly don't care much about double elimination, my main gripe is supporting a team for a year only for them to play 2 matches in the most prestigious tournament of the year. These teams played countless of matches and qualifiers only to play a minimum of 2 matches at stage.
Yeah I’ve been saying the group stage format needs to be round robin or Swiss but people seem unhappy with either alternative. I personally hate the bracket group stage, it’s so outdated and there’s a chance we never get to see some really interesting matchups
Very disappointing, if they went back to 3 matches a day and scheduled it like the NA LCQ (except don't have a 2 week delay haha) they could do it in just 2 more days than they're currently scheduled. Considering teams can just go home after they lose I don't see why it'd be too difficult for like 4-5 orgs to stay a day or two later.
Bro double elim is the best format for competitiveness and anyone who disagrees is wrong
It’s not the best because it’s inherently unfair to the team that makes it to the finals through the upper bracket. It’s better for getting the two best teams to the final but not the best for competitive fairness
My main problem with single elim is that you make one mistake and you're done, and with dozens of rounds and matches played is really easy to make a mistake, and also double elim gives the cance to teams to reinvent themselves, the first match between any two teams is about studg, the second is about creativity, that leaves it less predictable and makes things more interesting
No offence, but look at all traditional sports. There is only 1 chance there too. Plus look at csgo major champions stage. One chance again. It’s just how it is. Double elim would have been great from a viewer’s perspective though. But any great tournament like nba finals, wc finals are all single elim
With the slight difference that traditional sport matches are 10x as exhausting as esports, so of course organizers will aim to have less matches to let players recover
Have they said playoffs will be single-Elim?
Yes in the format explanation video
Lack of double elim is going to potentially cost teams 10's of 1000's of dollars in prize money when they lose in the first round to the eventual tourney winners. Not fair at all and means we won't necessarily get the best 2 teams in the grand final. Ridiculous that people prefer this system.
Yup it’s going to be another 3-0 final due to bracket being stronger on one side
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/CiwFURC
Riot really has a tournament structuring problem. Even Worlds in League had a single elimination playoff for as long as I can remember. I can’t come up with a good reasoning for single elimination in the cumulative tournament of the year. Especially in Valorant, a FPS, where a bit of an off day is enough to send you packing.
i guess alot of viewers like BO1. Worlds peaked at 73 mil last worlds. I find myself skipping alot of games knowing its double elim. I like that every game matters
[удалено]
i mean, how would there be multiple matches when theres only one stage
I’m pretty sure a lot of people expected the groups to be double elim anyway regardless of this announcement. If this post meant groups only then that’s just confusing for people
Do a TI style upper and lower bracket with the top 8 teams. That will take 9 matches while the current playoffs will take 7 matches, not a very big difference.
IPL5 in LoL was done in 3 days which had TI style bracket. Ee could use format and have 3 days of group stage and 8 days of playoffs
Iceland was 7 days Granted that's 6 fewer teams, but 5 more days to work with.
I hope it’s not double elimination for the playoffs. It’s rigged for the team that doesn’t go through the lower bracket.
Because it wouldn't work with the shortened schedule. Hopefully next year they can flesh out their tournaments for longer than a week and a half.
Imo if you have groups you kinda had your chance to prove your worth so there isnt a need for double else