The sides, red and blue, aren't equal. In any meta. I prefer best of 2 so each team gets one chance at each side. A third game gives natural advantage to one team. Win one, lose one means the power side won 2. It's a fairer system.
Linthe2 votesNot a bad argument.. But since it is a double round robin season I would assume that it's Red/Blue/Red one series and Blue/Red/Blue the next series.. So equal.
Anyone confirm???
TurquoiseYoshi1 votesPretty sure this is how it works, from what I remember of Jatt explaining in one of the broadcasts at one point.
Chumpzi11a1 votesSo you could go 3-2, from the example above, winning red and blue, then blue in the rematch, and losing red and blue in the rematch and go even? 1 series apiece? How in going 3-2 in games and 1-1 in series equal or fair? In best of 2s going 3-1 gets you 4 points and 1 point for them, a clearer differentiation.
Shadowatom1 votesBo2 is a little wonky though in standings. Looking at Fnatic and G2 is weird right now as someone brought up in another thread, G2 is undefeated in a series, but Fnatic is the one ahead because they've won one more game, but they also lost a game, so... who's actually the better team? Fnatic won more series, but G2 has yet to lose one... it's like seeing an unstoppable force meet an immovable object when trying to think of which one is better.
Also, I think you mixed two arguments when talking about clarity in differentiation and fairness, because Bo3 in a double round robin format is still fair. Lets say blue side always wins, this results in both teams ending 3-3 in games and 1-1 in matches. If a team tilts this into their favor by winning on an offside, it's a result of their skill, not the side advantage which is fair game since it's decided by the players. This does become confusing when looking at two teams who are 2-0 in matches, but one of them is 4-0 while the other is 4-2, but that's where game differential comes into play to help sort the standings. Both formats have their confusing bits, but they also have things that can clarify a bit.
I will admit that I am biased towards the Bo3 format only because things like the Fnatic and G2 situation is too confusing for me, because I personally see them on equal terms thus far (both have game records of 12-4), yet Fnatic is shown to be better when looking at their points. I guess this week would clear it up, but if they tie, then it's still the same situation...
B00B001 votescompleley 100% agree, for league i prefer 3v3 however this is why they did the Bo2 format ''test'' on the EU as were all very used to these types of formats.
Cie Cie1 votesIt doesnt.. While blue side gets first pick red side gets to pick up second and third. completely fair.
Chumpzi11a1 votesI must disagree. The relative value of the picks is determined by the champs that get through the bans, right? Also, individual team strengths and weaknesses, but if only 1 super op champ is available, it's going blue. So red side tries to leave 3 up, and so on, draft strategy. My point is, whichever side is better, due to number of s-tier champs or their relative strength (a team with a great Lee Sin player may be fine with that and give up a more meta jungler, for example), in a best of 3, someone gets it twice. Win on the weak side or tie.
Miror B1 votesDefinitely have to agree with this. Last year Gravity thoroughly abused one side to get all their wins (pretty sure it was red side), but was like 1-8 on the other one. While bo3's are nice for the potential (as game 3 doesn't always happen) for more practice, literally every other competitive scene in the western hemisphere uses a bo2 format making it rather redundant (EU/challenger both use it, as does NA challenger which should make the transition to the LCS all the more interesting for them).
NeoDeimos1 votesI highly prefer Bo3, because it actually gives us a winner, instead of a tie.
The main reason I absolutely despise Bo2? The completely arbitrary point structure. There is a reward for winning a Bo2 set, but NO punishment for losing it. Exhibit A: We have 2 teams, Team A and Team B. Both of these teams have played 10 Bo2 series (not against each other), and each have won 10 games and lost 10 games. Both are .500, both are completely average, both are EQUAL. But wait! Team A went 2-0 in 5 of their matches, and 0-2 in the other 5; while Team B went 1-1 in all 10 matches. This leaves Team A with 15 points, but Team B only at 10, despite both teams winning and losing the same amount of games.
Team A was rewarded an extra point for winning the series - instead of 2 points for winning 2 games, they were given 3 points because they went 2-0. However, when Team A went 0-2, they still received 0 points. They weren't punished for losing, ONLY rewarded for winning.
This is how things work in the current Bo2 format: Whichever team wins game 1, they get 1 point. Simple, obvious. The issue comes in game 2. Let's say Team X won game 1. If they win game 2 as well, suddenly that game is worth 2 points for them, instead of only 1 (because if Team X wins game 2, they are given 3 points for winning 2-0). However, if Team Y wins game 2, then it's only worth 1 point to them (because each team would go 1-1 in the series). How can the same game be worth a different point total for each team?!
In a Bo2 format, 1 game should equal 1 point. Winning a series should be worth 2 points, not 3.
Ale non è male1 votesThis is how things work in the current Bo2 format: Whichever team wins game 1, they get 1 point. Simple, obvious. The issue comes in game 2. Let's say Team X won game 1. If they win game 2 as well, suddenly that game is worth 2 points for them, instead of only 1 (because if Team X wins game 2, they are given 3 points for winning 2-0). However, if Team Y wins game 2, then it's only worth 1 point to them (because each team would go 1-1 in the series). How can the same game be worth a different point total for each team?!
In a Bo2 format, 1 game should equal 1 point. Winning a series should be worth 2 points, not 3.
Countering your argument, why in a Bo3 a team that win 1 game get 0 points? Shouldn't a team that loses 2-1 be rewarded in comparison to a team that loses 2-0?
I'm not a fan of Bo2 by any means, but the point system is spot on, at least that
NeoDeimos1 votesBecause a Bo3 is simply about winning the series, regardless of if you sweep or not. Bo3 is also better when it comes to making adjustments. Win game 1, lose game 2... NOW we see if Team A can adjust in the same way Team B did and prove which team is actually better; as opposed to a Bo2 where we still don't know who is better. Keeping in mind, Worlds does NOT end after a 1-1 series start, we need an actual winner. Bo3's promote playing out and winning the series, as opposed to the guesswork of a Bo2.
Not to mention, I've heard the commentators say that, if teams finish in a tie at the end of the season, one of the tiebreakers is your game record. So a team that goes 2-1 as opposed to a sweep DOES get punished in a tiebreaker scenario. (or conversely, it DOES reward teams that win one of the games when losing the other 2)