BLG’s game record was 0-2 against T1 but if they were to win 3-2 in the finals, that would result in total of 4-3 record in favor of T1.

Swiss works the same as triple elim except that the cutoff point is at top 8. Whereas double elim goes further and seed the top 2 teams.

They could label the playoffs “grandfinals qualification” because that’s literally what it is.

  • JozozB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What I love the most about this whole debate is that in Valorant this whole issue is just largely settled. Everyone wants double elim all the time. There was one single elim Valorant major at some point and everyone complained to Riot so they changed it.

    Now literally every Valorant major is double elim. The reason Valorant fans want is because they get to see a lot more matches. But in League of Legends so many people have complete stockholm syndrome about this topic. We are now in a world where everything except Worlds in League is double elim and it’s just way better. Playoffs in regions is way better and MSI is way better than it used to be.

    All this being said, I think there’s a healthy discussion to be had about how to increase the Winner bracket’s advantage a bit. I see a lot of people saying straight up untrue things like the loser bracket being favored, which is just a textbook case of survivorship bias. Winner bracket having to play less games to reach final is a big advantage and so is being able to study more film of your opponents.

    All that being said, I would be completely fine with Riot experimenting with giving winner side an additional ban on top of side select or something like that. I also saw people suggest that winner bracket would get guaranteed side selection if it went to 5 games which is also a good idea imo.