You Should Have to Lose Twice to Lose Double Elimination

It seems unfair that someone who wins all games except the final doesn’t get another chance. I have seen other double elimination formats where you must lose twice in order to be knocked out. Thoughts?

4 Likes

That’s been a bug for as long as I can remember. Afaik, anoek would have to fix it, and there are other things which are priorities. I would love to see it get fixed, though.

1 Like

It’s not a bug

3 Likes

It’s an incorrect implementation of Double-elimination. It may be a minor bug. It may be not worth the hassle of fixing, but it’s clearly a bug.

1 Like

Just because it bugs you doesn’t mean it’s a bug.

Double elimination tournaments are run either way.

3 Likes

They have each lost one game and and played each other. Their record on loses its the same so the winner of the game where they played each other is the winner. Seems reasonable.

You’re eliminated when you’ve lost two games, and neither player has done so yet. That’s why you have the final game in that case.

2 Likes

I like the quote:

Even when knowing its a conscious choice, ppl have called it a bug over and over again for years. I feel that this alone suggests that it should be changed. When the tournament format is double-elimination, is feels just weird and wrong to be out after getting your first loss, regardless how have the other ppl played their matches.

6 Likes

It seems reasonable as a decision if you were to rename the tournament style to express what is definitely a variation from the generally accepted structure of a double-elimination tournament. The name itself expresses that a player is only eliminated from contention upon losing their second game, and that the tournament continues until all competitors but one have been eliminated.

If you want to have some variation on the style in which the final match is considered some sort of tiebreaker to prevent an additional match, then it should be called something other than just “double-elimination”.

If you really don’t want to call it a bug, fine, it’s a misleading design decision.

6 Likes

While I agree that, if the choice were mine, I would have implemented a true double elimination; having a single elimination grand final for a double elimination tournament is extremely common practice (from what I’ve seen, despite intuition, possibly the most common) and so we should not discredit the initial design choice as an obvious bug when it was in fact just a feature design choice that we don’t like.

FWIW, anoek has stated that fixing this would depend on overhauling a great many other things on the back end, and will not be happening any time soon

5 Likes

I must admit that my experiences in double-elimination tournaments stems from a competitive sports background moreso than a competitive mind games background, so it certainly could be more commonplace in that realm without me knowing. I’ve just never seen it implemented this way personally.

3 Likes

Now they I think about it, in the surrounding game movie, wasn’t the double elimination tournament played without the final game? That is, the winner of the winner winners’ bracket is the winner and the winner of the losers’ bracket is the runner up (and presumably the loser of the final in the losers’ bracket places third).
So maybe the problem is not the lack of an extra game if the winners’ winner loses to the losers’ winner but the fact that that match has happened at all. The outcome should just be declared one round earlier.