EPTBest of Five - Page 2
| Blogs > motbob |
|
Malaz
Germany1257 Posts
| ||
|
jpak
United States5045 Posts
I think also cutting down the number of maps a tournament uses can be beneficial to the players because now they can prepare better for the maps that are in play. | ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9110 Posts
| ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
There has to be a balance between enough games so that the grand finals doesn't become too coin-flippy, but not too long either so that it becomes a marathon. Also, there needs to be enough games so that there can be a feeling of "yes, this is the finale". WCG had a Bo3 for the grand finals, and it was very anti-climatic. But we need to reward the best players. That's competition. I don't want to see ActionJesus 6 pool to the finals, or Lucky doing nothing but roach ling all-ins to the finals. Upsets are nice, but seeing strong consistent players showcase their dominance is better and a more equitable. To me, there isn't too much difference between Bo5 and Bo7 frankly. Many BW fans want Bo5 just because they are used to it, while many other fans would prefer Bo7 because many tournaments have been doing it that way. There haven't been too many issues with the Bo7, so I figure no need to make the changes. | ||
|
Apom
France656 Posts
Regarding Probe1's point, it actually adresses two different topics : - extended series - let's just all admit that they kill e-sports and move on - double elimination - yes, I like single elimination better as a spectator... in principle. For that ship to hold water, we would need a way to properly seed players. IPL did it through uncommunicated means, and that was good. NASL did it through publicly available but ultimately bad methods, and we have a terrible finals while MC vs Stephano happened earlier. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
There have been epic Bo7s, where we see 3-3, after initial 3-0 or 3-1, and that's certainly more epic for a series than 2-2. So yeah. I've recently followed the Age of Empires 2 epic Bo21 series on twitch (no kidding), and following the ups and downs of the score was incredibly exciting, with the lead or momentum being exchanged. There's more mindgames in a longer series, more room for come back, even if you lose a couple of games - hence, more room to study your opponent, adapt, and take over. It's the marathon-vs-sprint argument; generally you win long distance run by being smart and keeping your biggest strengths for later. Sometimes that creates great competitions. Overall, I'd say let them have all kinds of formats - each flavor has its advantages and disadvantages. Currently in SC2 we have grandfinal formats ranging from Bo3 to Bo7 or even Bo9 in some team leagues. It's okay, imo. | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
A related thing that bothers me is tournaments that use Bo5 from the Ro16 who then still include a loser's bracket, or a round robin tournament where every match is a Bo3/Bo5. We really don't need that many measures to ensure that the best player reaches the top. If you're going to make the tournament a round robin, there will be some upsets with individual matches but over the course of the tournament, the best player should rise to the top. If you're going to have a Bo5 in the Ro16, you don't need to include a loser's bracket as well. If a player loses a Bo5 against a weaker player, he deserves to be out. You've given him more than enough chances already. Tournament organizers are way too intent on having the "best" player progress, often at the cost of excitement and game quality. | ||
|
Neelia
Germany599 Posts
On July 16 2012 15:27 motbob wrote: Anticlimax Often, after a Bo7 reaches the point of 3-0 or 3-1, things can get rather boring, despite the fact that a friggin' finals is being played. The result of the series feels like a foregone conclusion. The spectators hit alt-tab, and other important internet things are done while the SC2 match finishes in the background. If the match feels like a foregone conclusion, that's because it pretty much is. There have been 31 Bo7 series that reached the point of 3-1 or 3-0. Of those, in only one match did the disadvantaged player eventually win the series. That's right. You could have closed out the stream and gone to bed after a 3-1 or 3-0 result and only regretted it 3.2% of the time. This feeling of anti-climax is eliminated by a Bo5 finals format. Even players in an 0-2 hole don't seem incapable of pulling the match out. I would be quite interesting to see if the comeback percentage of comebacks after being down 0-2 was/is much higher of if it just feels/seems more possible : ) | ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On July 16 2012 22:05 Neelia wrote: I would be quite interesting to see if the comeback percentage of comebacks after being down 0-2 was/is much higher of if it just feels/seems more possible : ) Bo5 0-2 is equivalent to Bo7 1-3 from a certain standpoint, and a comeback from 1-3 has, as I've said, been done only once. In BW, there are two 0-2 comebacks that I can name off the top of my head. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
| ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
| ||
|
Testuser
6469 Posts
Jokes aside, I completely agree with you. You presented it very well, and indeed, often a series loses it's relevance when it's Bo7. I guess it'd make it easier/tougher for the players too, only having to prepare for five scenarios while also having to keep in mind that losing one map is that much more dire. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
I also think Bo5 series in BW, the 5th game really is amazing because both players have nothing more to lose to fall back on, so they play as hard as possible and often play to see a longer game too (not always). The 4th game is also exciting, because it is one player fighting for his right to game 5 (Jangbi vs Zero). Bo7 is quantity over quality, pretty uniformly the SC2 experience. More tournaments, more games, more everything except concentration. SC2 is picking up, but it would pick up a lot faster if players could really focus and think about the maps. edit: This isn't Tennis. It's not the same court every serve with slightly varied strategies. It's a completely different court that you need to prepare for. Competitive RTS isn't comparable enough to stuff like Tennis to have any value in learning from each other. | ||
|
garbanzo
United States4046 Posts
On July 16 2012 21:42 Daigomi wrote: Thank you Motbob! I have been arguing about this for years now so it's nice to see someone else make a similar point. A related thing that bothers me is tournaments that use Bo5 from the Ro16 who then still include a loser's bracket, or a round robin tournament where every match is a Bo3/Bo5. We really don't need that many measures to ensure that the best player reaches the top. If you're going to make the tournament a round robin, there will be some upsets with individual matches but over the course of the tournament, the best player should rise to the top. If you're going to have a Bo5 in the Ro16, you don't need to include a loser's bracket as well. If a player loses a Bo5 against a weaker player, he deserves to be out. You've given him more than enough chances already. Tournament organizers are way too intent on having the "best" player progress, often at the cost of excitement and game quality. I agree with this. I never really understood this obsession with protecting the statistically better player and making sure that they get to the end. The most exciting games/series, for me, are the ones where the better prepared player wins. It's so much more exciting when you know that, statistically, player A shouldn't beat player B, but they do anyway because their builds are tailored to take advantage of player B's weaknesses. I think definitely less maps and a shorter finals series would help a lot with creating this excitement. | ||
|
garbanzo
United States4046 Posts
On July 16 2012 22:32 Saechiis wrote: I think your points are rather trivial and dependant on personal preference, it sounds more like you're rationalising your existing preference for BO5's rather than making an actual statement that could sway people's opinion. Umm...he brings up very valid statistics, data, and analysis. If anything he's doing the opposite of what you're saying. | ||
|
Flip9
Germany151 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On July 16 2012 22:57 garbanzo wrote: I agree with this. I never really understood this obsession with protecting the statistically better player and making sure that they get to the end. The most exciting games/series, for me, are the ones where the better prepared player wins. It's so much more exciting when you know that, statistically, player A shouldn't beat player B, but they do anyway because their builds are tailored to take advantage of player B's weaknesses. I think definitely less maps and a shorter finals series would help a lot with creating this excitement. Yeah, I think that you aren't even ensuring the best player goes through when you have more games. You're just rewarding a player for different things (I guess mechanics and general knowledge?), where the things that make StarCraft exciting like strategy and timings aren't rewarded in that system. Players need both time and motivation. Motivation comes from getting deep in the tournament, time comes from having less games to prepare for. I think it is actually ridiculous that group stages in GSL are a bo3 per matchup. It just makes everything take forever. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
| ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
On July 16 2012 20:39 Apom wrote: I will like Bo7 as a format when there are 7-set tennis tournaments. Regarding Probe1's point, it actually adresses two different topics : - extended series - let's just all admit that they kill e-sports and move on - double elimination - yes, I like single elimination better as a spectator... in principle. For that ship to hold water, we would need a way to properly seed players. IPL did it through uncommunicated means, and that was good. NASL did it through publicly available but ultimately bad methods, and we have a terrible finals while MC vs Stephano happened earlier. Basically, never? Nice wan :D But yeah, as I read more and more posts, I'm becoming even more swayed to eh Bo5 side. Granted Bo7 can be pretty interesting, but not with one-on-one series. The key, I think, is the need to have good seeding. | ||
| ||
