This will mainly be a quick rant since the only other topic that comes to mind that and is ripe for discussion, and always in abundance is drama. However I never held a fondness for TMZ so I see no reason to emulate it, though I guess expressing my opinion couldn’t be seen as much better. Though one other excuse could be that following the constant flow of League drama is almost as hard as keeping up with the other thing pros are well known for being in, tournaments.
Which brings me back to my main focus of discussion, best of 1 formats that seem to come about with the yearly iteration of worlds. I can see the appeal to be honest, they take up less time especially for the qualifying matches, and in cases like the group stage where there can be up to 16 groups and a time slot to fit there’s a need for it. There’s also the idea that with only 1 match being played between two teams the one who wins the one and only game can be considered better. There’s some merit in this since in the style that the “winner takes all” system has some people see no difference between 1 game or 5. The only real difference that can be seen is for the sake of entertainment and the real purpose of seeing which team is better then is objectively second.
From a marketing perspective you would want more games since more airtime and more games being played can create both collective hype and suspense being drawn from the crowd. It also creates a sense of fairness, since often times you see one mistake being made by a team which then spirals into a win. You have shout casters who have extensive game knowledge of the game able to look back and confidently point out one moment in a game and say confidently “that’s the one, the moment that x team had it.” There are always exceptions, some games are a constant back and forth to the point that a game drags into the later stages where any mistake is critical due to prolonged death timers. Mistakes are something that is as consistent and natural as losses, though for the prevention of too much pessimism the same can be applied to the consistency of wins.
Which is why I feel that with the decider being 1 game some players can’t help but feel cheated, though saying cheated is a viewpoint that can be seen as excessive. There is an increase in thought such as “if I did this” or “if this hadn’t happened” that can’t help but be thought. Though the obvious problem with such is that with more games being added there’s no way to prevent emotions from past games taking effect, causing players to take actions they other wise wouldn’t that could stem in either a loss or win, though the most often result associated with this idea is a loss. With only 1 game there is usually no emotional factor from past games being held, only the now, it’s a close as clean slate you could get with the tools at hand.
So why my distaste for the BO1 archetype? Maybe I can’t help but feel some of the players emotions of being slighted as I echo their thoughts of “If I did this instead” which then follows the feelings that they would have surely learned from their mistake and improve in the five minute time span till the next one. Unfortunately these are all “what if” scenarios that unfortunately has a tendency to eat up time with the constant debates and scenarios included. What if I just enjoy riding the suspense and hype roller coaster that’s built from a multiple game decider.