In international first-line tournaments such as IEM Cologne and Katowice, the six-team single-elimination tournament format has become the norm. A recent HLTV editorial bluntly stated: “The six-team elimination tournament deprives two venues of the opportunity to compete against each other”. In communities such as Reddit, some players also expressed their preference for double-elimination or a more hierarchical tournament structure.
As the annual CS2 tournament continues to expand and mature, the fairness and viewing experience of the tournament system are becoming the focus of more and more people. This article will explore why the six-team elimination format has been criticized, and possible future optimization directions, through data, public opinion, and comparative analysis.
Current Status and Problems of the Six-Team Elimination System
1. Current Status: Common in Top-Level Events
In the elimination stage of IEM Cologne 2025, a total of six teams entered the LAN stage: two of them advanced directly to the semifinals, and the other four played in the “playoffs” first.
In many BLAST and ESL series events, the six-team elimination format has become the standard. HLTV pointed out that many large events “often miss two venues” in their schedules .
In other words, from the group stage to the finals, most events are gradually adapting to the six-team elimination system as the “standard” arrangement.
2. Controversy: The “stolen” venue competition opportunity and viewing experience
(1) The two-venue competition was “omitted”
HLTV editors mentioned that the six-team competition system may allow strong teams to skip a step, reducing the opportunity for public competition. Both the organizers and the audience lost the necessary transition tension from the “semi-finals to the finals”.
(2) Unbalanced promotion and fragmented viewing experience
In the six-team system, some teams have the advantage of directly advancing to the semi-finals due to their excellent performance, while other teams must pass a level first. This arrangement is regarded by some players as “asymmetrical schedule”, especially since the teams that lag behind in the rankings have to play more rounds, which is more physically and mentally demanding. A player on Reddit said:
> “Rather than this top six elimination match, I would rather see a real double elimination match”
(3) “The difference in the competition system” may amplify the luck factor
When one team directly advances to the semi-finals, while the other team must go through an additional BO3 elimination match, their fatigue, emotional fluctuations and preparation strategies may be significantly affected, resulting in unreasonable results in high-level confrontations.
Feedback from the community and players
Many users discussed on Reddit that they prefer to use double elimination instead of the six-team system, believing that this can strike a balance between fairness and watchability
Some people pointed out that events such as Cologne and Katowice already have a relatively complex grouping mechanism in the group stage, and it is not impossible to return to the double elimination structure directly in the knockout stage
Some people even think that the “six-team elimination” format has become a “compromise” format, a compromise between the organizers’ control of venue costs and the arrangement of audience time.
These discussions further highlight that from fans, professional players to event organizations, all parties are seeking a balance between watchability and fairness.
Feasibility and cases of other competition system models
1. Double elimination
The advantage is that each team has at least one chance to fail, reducing the fate of “being eliminated by an upset”. Many e-sports events, such as Dota and StarCraft, generally adopt this method in the finals.
The disadvantage is that it places high demands on the schedule, time, and venue; it is more complicated to arrange for live broadcast or offline execution.
2. Eight-team single-elimination + top four promotion
This is a more traditional elimination format, with four quarterfinals, two semifinals, and one final. It has a simple structure and is highly watchable. PGL and other events tend to adopt this “standard elimination” structure in some tour stages.
3. Group + double elimination or Swiss + elimination cross
This hybrid structure is currently the most common in CS2 events: Swiss or GSL group matches determine the qualifiers, and then enter the single elimination or double elimination stage. This provides multiple competitive dimensions for the event while taking into account fairness and viewing.
Data Analysis
Suppose a tournament adopts a six-team knockout format, with the following LAN match schedule:
The two advancing teams skip the first round
The four teams play two “playoff” matches → semifinals → finals
Therefore, the entire tournament consists of: 2 “playoff” matches + 2 semifinals + 1 finals = 5 LAN matches
If the format were to switch to an eight-team knockout format, it would typically consist of: 4 quarterfinals + 2 halffinals + 1 finals = 7 LAN matches, which is 2 fewer matches compared to a six-team format (approximately 28% of the direct knockout matches are compressed).
At top-tier tournaments and on the main stage, these two matches are often key moments for team-fan interaction and storytelling. The six-team format invisibly “sucks away” this potential value.
Conclusion
Combining HLTV’s original editorial, Reddit community discussions, tournament practices, and quantitative estimates, we can draw the following conclusions:
1. Six-team elimination tournaments are indeed extremely common in mainstream tournaments**, but the lack of a transitional stage reduces the intensity of the tournament.
2. The conflict between fairness and spectator appeal** has led many players to call for double-elimination, eight-team, or mixed formats.
3. Tournament organization costs and match pressure may be the fundamental driving force behind the widespread adoption of the six-team format.
4. Future Optimization Direction should favor a more flexible format: If tournament scale and budget allow, a return to the standard quarterfinals or the addition of a loser’s bracket could be possible; if time is tight, a six-team format could incorporate a “loser’s comeback” mechanism or staggered schedules.
For the long-term development of the CS2 brand and tournament ecosystem, a fair, engaging elimination tournament structure that satisfies both players and spectators is a critical node that must be seriously considered. If future tournament organizers can heed the community’s voice and make appropriate changes to the knockout structure, it will undoubtedly inject new momentum into CS2‘s competitive expression and spectator experience. What are your thoughts? Should they continue with the six-team format, or should they reshape the knockout format as appropriate?