CHALLENGE The_ CHAMPIONS LEAGUE, The_'s CHALLENGE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE

I've always found it strange why people use the "Olympic" format in the early stages, and then switch to groups, double elimination, and so on.

For most players, the goal is to have fun, not to win.

And those who are actually aiming for victory are often overwhelmed with tournaments; they would actually benefit from finishing them quickly. Moreover, for top players, it doesn't really matter whether they play to 1 win, 2 wins, or 3 wins; it doesn't significantly affect the outcome.

However, when players of different skill levels meet, it's quite important whether they play to 1 win or 2 wins. In the second case, the variance is lower, and therefore the chances of the more skilled player winning are higher than in the first case.

The "Olympic" format is used in almost all individual sports/esports, at least for qualification. This is done primarily to fit the tournament into a specific timeframe. In theory, the fairest option would be a round-robin system, but I think everyone would get tired of it after a month, including myself.

I haven't met anyone who plays just for fun, without having any hope or goal of winning. In my opinion, if such people exist, they don't stick around for long, and in general, it's unnatural to do something without having an end goal.

It seems we've discussed it many times that in Heroes, you can't get anywhere without a certain amount of luck, at least in competitive play. Therefore, even a 10-0 streak may not reflect reality in some cases. A strong player is characterized by their composure and correct strategy: playing safely against a weaker opponent to avoid losing or making mistakes, and then capitalizing on their experience advantage. And I would much rather watch top players play against each other, first in groups, and then in a double elimination bracket (I'm just speaking as a viewer), than watch 48 groups followed by an "Olympic" format for the top players.