Why did EU get BO2 and NA get BO3?
I just didn't know the real reason behind this. The only thing I could really figure was the broadcast times, since EU had less air time than NA, but I never heard and actual reason. Anyone know?
5 Comments
All I ever hear is that EU loves ties- so when 2 teams fight it out and they both win/lose no one is really a loser or a winner but both are equal and no feelings get hurt and both ride into the sunset as WINNERS............and LOSERS
Everything I've heard points to the fact that soccer/association football uses the same 3/1/0 point system as a Bo2 system uses.
Riot wants to test out both and felt that EU would be more accepting of the Bo2 format while NA would want the Bo3 format (which, if you couldn't tell from the criticisms from NA fans of the Bo2, they were pretty spot on with that), so... yeah. I personally don't care and enjoy more games, I just wished they spread them out over more days instead of fitting up to 40-50 games (20 in EU, 20-30 in NA) within such a small amount of time (I don't even care about not being able to always watch because of the 2 stream thing, I just hate feeling so overloaded by the number of games played at once).
tl;dr, both Bo2s and Bo3s have pros and cons and Riot wasn't ready to commit to one and decided to try both (as the decision to ditch Bo1s was finalized as Bo1s are clearly outdated). Bo2s had benefits in scheduling, but was lacking in competitive satisfaction (as you can end up with ties). Bo3s are a giant pain with scheduling as the duration of the match can vary widely, but there is a definitive winner at the end, which is very satisfying for both the teams and the players. The reason NA got Bo3s and EU got Bo2s came down to cultural acceptance. EU has a culture that accepts ties, while NA has a strong disdain for them.