Ever since the You Are The Golf King MSL in 2004, the two most prestigious SC:BW tournaments in Korea have run Bo5 formats for their finals, instead of the Bo7 popular among SC2 tourney organizers, most notably GSL. In fact, the Bo5 has been the default finals setup for pretty much every Brood War tournament organizer. As mentioned, the MSL tinkered around with a Bo7 but quickly switched back.
SC2 tournament organizers should follow their predecessors' example and switch to a format involving only Bo5 series. Bo7 series are very good at awarding the win to the better player, but they are not so good at delivering an entertaining experience.
The Last Game of a Finals is Always the Best One
This principle was laid out by Arrian in his excellent article, A Finale in Five. When he said that the final game of the series was always the best, he was referring to the game 5 in a Bo5 series, or in the GSL's case, a game 7 in a Bo7 series. Those are games when everything is on the line. Whoever wins that one game wins the whole series.
the last game really is always the best
It's easy to show that this principle is true, since we only have a small number of series to look at. There are six Bo7 series in the history of big-event competitive SC2 that have made it to the 7th and final game: ThorZaIN vs NaNiwa in TSL 3, DRG vs MMA in the 2011 Blizzard Cup, MKP vs NesTea in the second GSL Open, MVP vs Squirtle in the 2012 GSL Season 2, PuMa vs MC in NASL Season 1, and HerO vs PuMa at the last Dreamhack Winter. Six series in the entire history of SC2. Six out of forty-five (13%), actually. I counted.
In three of those six series, the seventh game was definitely considered to be the best. You just have to look at the recommended game polls for Naniwa vs Thorzain, DRG vs MMA, and HerO vs Puma to see the truth of that.
naniwa vs thorzain game 7
But the two series that I want to focus on are MKP vs Nestea and Mvp vs Squirtle. Both those series ended with games that, if viewed in a vacuum, would have been considered terrible. Somehow, though, they were highly rated by spectators as amazing games. That's the power of a game 7.
In game 7 of MKP vs Nestea, MKP went for an all-in 2 rax play, a build identical to the one he had performed in game 1. In fact, games 1 and 7 were almost identical in the way they played out -- so why did Lovedrop, in writing his finals recap article, rate game 1 much lower than he did game 7? And why did I, while watching the series live, feel many times more excited watching game 7 than game 1? It was the all-or-nothing stakes which hung over the game that bumped it up a few notches in intensity. The fact that it was the final game in the series made it the best.
In game 7 of Mvp vs Squirtle, Mvp went for an early rax all-in. Both players made mistakes, and the game ended quickly. It wasn't a good game at all! Yet in the recommended games poll, the game received a five-star rating from 70% of TLers. The fact that it was the final game in the series increased its perceived quality.
This isn't a new phenomenon. Game 5s in Brood War had a similar aura about them. One that stands out in my mind in particular was the final game of the exhibition series between Bisu and Jaedong after GOM season 2. Game 5 involved Jaedong running zerglings up a ramp on the map Andromeda and finishing the game rather quickly after that. The rest of the series featured some unusually high quality PvZ, but for the life of me, I can only remember details of the game that lasted eight minutes!
In Brood War, the frequency of finals that went to game 5 was 30% (15/50 -- yes, I counted again), substantially higher than the 13% for Bo7s in SC2. It makes sense that that's the case. Say you have two players, one who completely outclasses the other. Let's say the chance of Player A beating Player B is about 90%. In a Bo3, Player B actually has an 18% chance of taking the series to a game 3 (and an additional 1% chance of winning before then). But the chance of taking a Bo5 to game 5 is much lower -- about 5% -- and the chance of taking a Bo7 to game 7 is lower still (less than 2%). It's skill difference that makes a series more likely to go to the final game in a Bo5 than a Bo7.
To sum up: the final game of the series is (almost) always the best, and a Bo5 format leads to more final games than a Bo7 format.
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.
Maps
Maps are some of the most important parts of a pro scene. Just ask progamers who were competing when Scrap Station and Steppes of War were still floating around.
A smaller series allows players to eliminate unfair maps from the map pool via veto. It allows progamers to practice for fewer maps when preparing for the finals, condensing their practice time into prepping five map-specific strategies instead of seven. Watch Jjakji vs Leenock game 1 for an example of how a prepared strategy (the hidden command center behind the mineral patches) can change a game and improve the quality of a series.
The NFL vs the NBA
The NFL and the NBA are two institutions that take an entirely different approach to the playoffs. The NBA desperately wants the best team to win the finals, period -- from the start of the playoffs, teams play Bo7 series to ensure that the better team advances. The NFL, however, plays only one game per round. Winner takes all. This leads to more unpredictable playoffs. It's rare that the "best team" going into the playoffs wins the Super Bowl.
Yet that's not a bad thing. It creates an incredibly exciting postseason every year. SC2 organizations need not be hung up on the idea that the best player must win the tournament. There's a lot of luck associated with tournaments, anyway... the best players regularly get knocked out early on due to cheese or other flukes (just ask Bisu). That's part of what makes ESPORTS, and sports in general, so exciting. Sometimes the best player doesn't win.
incredibly insightful posts. i think the progression of boX give the viewers an interesting experience. watching the TSL qualies was a lot of fun, especially watching Ret's stream in the bo1 rounds. wonder what it would look like if some sc2 tournament organizer ran an entire tourney of bo1.
Your portion on anticlimax (3.2% of games resulted in a reversal at the brink) was interesting, more so because it is another example of how the GSTL refuses common knowledge or regular facts.
I grew up with Bo7 so it's hard for me to see it your way. At best, I like both ways. Most of the time I'm more concerned about whether silly double elimination-losers bracket-wore a brown shirt with black pants-didn't tip the boothgirl, inane type rules that have notably affected the finals of MLG beforehand.
Aside from my desire that any final should start clean, 0 to 0, no matter the earlier circumstances, I don't care all too much about Bo5 or Bo7. SC2 could use both. I would enjoy it either way. Thank you for taking the time to write this out though, it was interesting and made me think about the matter.
I was glued to my screen with my heart beating like hell during Mvp v Squirtle. I think I would being willing to trade a few games to get that feeling more.
Also,
On July 16 2012 15:42 Probe1 wrote: Aside from my desire that any final should start clean, 0 to 0, no matter the earlier circumstances
Bo5 > Bo7 in my books, from a viewer perspective. Feels like in a Bo7, the series just takes way too long, and the games aren't necessarily better. In fact, I can totally see someone half-assing a map they're not comfortable on with some lame strategy carrying the mindset of "Oh, if it works great, if not, I have 3 more losses till I lose". Bo5 comebacks are more frequent, more exciting, and it feels as if each game counts more because each individual game counts as a higher percentage of the overall goal.
Btw, GGPlay/Iris Game 5 finals #1. Shit was insaneeeeeeeee.
I definitely prefer the Bo5 system better, its something that I got really used to in BW
As for the excitement of a final game in a series, I feel that excitement has yet to completely pass over to other eSports, namely LoL; the only time I remember being excited for a final LoL game was during the most recent Dreamhack tourney.
Didn't MKP vs DRG in the last MLG they faced in the finals (winter arena or spring arena?) also go to game 7? Either way yeah I don't mind either though personally
SC2 tournaments started using Bo7 because in the early days SC2 games were usually extremely short (Steppes of war etc..) which led to silly things like the finals being over in less than 30mn of gametime. Now that things are stabilizing a bit, going back to bo5 could indeed be a good idea.
That said I agree with Probe1, we need to get rid of double elimination brackets, sure it creates more games but in the end the finals are just boring since one of the two players starts with a huge advantage. Single elimination brackets are way more exciting to watch because every game the players tournament life is on the line. Double elimination brackets on the other create these feelings of "oh well it's no big deal he lost since there's always loser bracket" and "oh well loser bracket doesnt really matter, the guy coming from the winner bracket will win the finals anyway" which kills excitement like nothing else. And I won't even talk about extended series :<
So in the end yeah, bo5 over bo7? why not, but double elim and extended series are a bigger priority imo.
On July 16 2012 15:27 motbob wrote: It's rare that the "best team" going into the playoffs wins the Super Bowl.
Yet that's not a bad thing. It creates an incredibly exciting postseason every year. SC2 organizations need not be hung up on the idea that the best player must win the tournament. There's a lot of luck associated with tournaments, anyway... the best players regularly get knocked out early on due to cheese or other flukes (just ask Bisu). That's part of what makes ESPORTS, and sports in general, so exciting. Sometimes the best player doesn't win.
I really really hate this approach and somehow this is only a problem for team sports. In tennis for example, in a high percentage of the time, the best player actually wins.
It's a good read, but Bo7 is IMO the best way to go. The better player will win and the excitement from the last game of a Bo7 is usually much better than the excitement that comes from the last game of a Bo5 (see games like Moon vs Huk, and countless IEMs, a lot of GSL playoff games which, aside from sC vs Nestea don't seem to be as exciting as a Bo7 final).
And there needs to be something which separates a Grand Final from a regular play off match and I feel Bo7 does that.
Also Leenock Jjakji ended 4-2, but the last game was nail-bitingly close and intense.
I don't know. You've made good points, but I feel just for the better excitement and story that comes with a full-series Bo7, a Bo7 is much better than a Bo5.
From a viewer perspective, bo5 is clearly superior to bo7. From a player perspective, it's always better with more games since it gives more room for skill and less for luck. One could discuss how big the difference is between a bo5 and a bo7 though, I think most people agree that if a player wins a bo5, they were the better player except in extreme cases.
I believe the biggest problem with Bo5 in SC2 is that the games are just too short. I believe a standard 4 games Bo5 in SC2 takes probably as long as the 3-0 OSL-Finals ZvZ blowout between Jaedong-Yarnc. And a 5 games series in BW takes longer than any Bo7 SC2 series every played, so there is enough build up for the final confrontation. I often wish that SC2 would just play out 5% slower, that's a thought I have had for a long time actually. So I still like Bo7 for the Grand Finals, basically because the games are so fast I need me some more games.
I applaud you good sir. This is something I've thought about quite a bit and I also prefer the bo5. I thought I was just so used to it from BW but I find bo7 often quite boring and you made a convincing case of why that is. Especially the 3-0 situation is depressing. The series drags on but everybody knows how this is gonna end.
The problem as people have mentioned is that SC2 games can end much more quickly, and Bo5 series can be over in a flash. The point about anticlimax is extremely astute as well--going down 3-0 or 3-1 just seems like an insurmountable problem many times. The NFL vs NBA point was also very interesting. I indeed think Bo5 is the way to go from a viewer's perspective. However, from a player's perspective in SC2, Bo7 definitely will be their favored format because they want to know that their hard practice and more consistent play will be rewarded etc I think.
The "better player doesn't always win" is a bit iffy though, since applied to SC2, it really sucks to have it decided with a comparatively shortened series.
It's easy to show that this principle is true, since we only have a small number of series to look at. There are six Bo7 series in the history of big-event competitive SC2 that have made it to the 7th and final game: ThorZaIN vs NaNiwa in TSL 3, DRG vs MMA in the 2011 Blizzard Cup, MKP vs NesTea in the second GSL Open, MVP vs Squirtle in the 2012 GSL Season 2, PuMa vs MC in NASL Season 1, and HerO vs PuMa at the last Dreamhack Winter. Six series in the entire history of SC2. Six out of forty-five (13%), actually. I counted.
That fact that the sample size is small isnt helping Your case, its irresponsible to draw conclusion from the small amount of data.
PS. I personaly like bo7 system. PS2. Actually after giving it some thought, i think that entire point is tottaly moot, the most important factor when considering bo7 vs bo5 is time consumption and ability to properly forsee and shedule the event. The organizers need to fill the time and stay at shedule at the same time, they will choose the format based on this rather than producing best game possible. People remmeber events based on production value, funny things happening and they favorite making, gameplay value as long isnt reaaaaaaly low doesnt matter that match (not to mention that best game ever for someone might be crappy for someone else).
People tend to overestimate the effect of extending the serie in term of helping the best player anyway. I think your point is especially true for a prepared tournament like GSL/OSL, as Bo5 ensures every map will be thouroughly prepared. In the same vein, I think loser pick map should disapear. And as a whole, use less map for a given tournament, but rotate them more. Also it's funny how SC2 is not less volatile than BW according to some people (when it comes to bw vs sc2 discussion), and when it comes to choosing a tournament format, you need Bo11 from the Ro64 on or it's unfair to the players. I think it has to do with how much people hate cheese in SC2, while it was often well received in BW. I'd therefore blame Artosis.
You know, there are some sports -like american football, football, rugby- where players simply need to have some days of rest after games for various reasons. If the NFL could have games every 2nd day, they surely would have bo3 playoffs at least. But as there have to be pauses between the games, with the current playoff system, going to bo3 would suddenly make playoffs lasting up to 12 weeks instead of 4. That's right, the super Bowl teams would have 3 less months of offseason compared to teams who didn't make the playoffs.
It not that NFL, or the World Cup, think bo1 is the best and fairest system. It is just the only one practically applicable for them.
And to the point of maps: If you allow maps being played twice in a bo7, this could very well increase to power of preparation. But I agree bo5 is optimal for sc:bw and sc2.
It's easy to show that this principle is true, since we only have a small number of series to look at. There are six Bo7 series in the history of big-event competitive SC2 that have made it to the 7th and final game: ThorZaIN vs NaNiwa in TSL 3, DRG vs MMA in the 2011 Blizzard Cup, MKP vs NesTea in the second GSL Open, MVP vs Squirtle in the 2012 GSL Season 2, PuMa vs MC in NASL Season 1, and HerO vs PuMa at the last Dreamhack Winter. Six series in the entire history of SC2. Six out of forty-five (13%), actually. I counted.
That fact that the sample size is small isnt helping Your case, its irresponsible to draw conclusion from the small amount of data.
45 series is actually a very decent sample size for this kind of data and will net you decent results. People here sometimes tend to way overestimate the numbers required to reach statistical conclusions. The important point he is making is a) that it happens not often (which you don't even need data for... 2 people being so equal that they need 7 games to decide who is better is obviously something that happens very rarely) and b) that it happens less times than it would in a Bo5 situation. Which is also easily to prove intuitively and statistically.
edit: So the only thing he really is looking for is the 13% game7 in Bo7s is (statistically) significantly lower than the 30% game5 in Bo5s, and there is no doubt in my mind that it is. What the data actually cannot really show (and in this way your criticism would be valid) is if 13% would still be the number of game7 in a sample of like 200 Bo7s. This would be very unlikely, with 45 cases the number could very well range somewhere in between 10-20%, as one more series would already shift the results by a few percentage points.
.I never tought about this, but I really think you're right. What also has to be considered is that tournaments with a loser bracket often times have a way to give the player coming from the winner bracket an advantage (extended series e.g.). Although it's most likely fair to do so, it often times leads to very boring/anti-climatic finals.
Another thing that made BW Bo5s so exciting was that the first and the last set were played on the same map. This can lead to a lot of suspense before the final game. How would the players play on this map on the last game compared to the first?
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.
A never thought about it beyond the point of "bo7 is too long imo" but upon reading this blog I have to say I agree. I also agree finals would be more exciting if both players went into it on even footing. Perhaps have a separate independent prize for the winner bracket champion in an MLG type format to make it fair?
But according to your main argument, wouldn't then a best of 1 be the way to go? :p
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.
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.
If the grandfinal is not played on the same day as the semi-finals (like it's still done in some major events, unfortunately), I don't mind even Bo21.
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.
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.
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 : )
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 : )
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.
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.
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.
I think even for players Bo7 is horrible. You can't prepare properly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
With Bo7, I get bored. Especially if the players aren't players where I'm emotionally invested in one or the other winning. A Bo5, I'll watch anyways usually.
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.
Nice post and insightful replies too. I personally prefer Bo5 because it feels like each set is valued a little higher than in a Bo7, yet the series is long enough to allow room for strategic risks and planning.
Hmmmm. A tough one. I think there are pros and cons to both, and I'm actually not sure which side I agree on. On the one hand, Bo5 does mean each game matters more, comebacks are more possible. On the other hand, Bo7 means the finals are truly differentiated from the rest of the tournament, and when the comebacks do happen (or even when they come really close to happening, see DRG vs MMA Blizzcup for one of the most insane finals games in the history of anything ever) they mean a huge amount. In this case I think it is really up to the tournament, there is no real right or wrong answer imo.
On July 17 2012 00:23 Leyra wrote: Really interesting read, my biggest nit to pick is the reference to NBA vs NFL... You really can't compare the two, they're like apples and oranges ;D
Well, I was just trying to show that there are multiple valid philosophies when running a playoff. Things can be exciting even if the better team isn't definitely going to win. Maybe an NBA vs NCAA hoops comparison would have been clearer, but that comparison and the one I used serve the same purpose in my mind.
There's been a few threads discussing this as well, but none quite in such depth and detail as you have laid out. I'm right with you on this one.
I used to be a fan of the Bo7 thinking the more the better right? Well after 2 years of Bo7s I can confidently say this is not the case. In fact more often than not it's the exact opposite. There have been numerous absolutely terrible bo7s in SC2 with lopsided 4-0s probably being the most common result. When a series gets to 3-0 the chance of a comeback happening is pretty close to non-existent and by that point both players know it. The last game in 4-0 sweep is usually a rather pathetic game and no one wants to watch it. Rather just bust out the medals and wrap the tournament out because the fans are as burned out as the players.
Bo5s have seen some of the most exciting and dramatic results in competitive gaming. The OSL and MSL finals never seem to disappoint. Even in the odd occasion where there is a 3-0 sweep you never feel like the loser was truly out of it until the trophy is being handed out. Point in case the Korean Air OSL finals between effort and Flash, one of the most epic and exciting series ever to be played was a situation where it looked like flash was just going to sweep effort in God-like fashion, but a failed cheese, and a couple sneaky plays by effort ended up swinging the series around and allowing effort to claim the prize. Even a comeback from down 2-0 is pretty amazing and makes for really exciting viewing and story telling.
Even the recent bo5s we've seen in SC2 that were NOT finals created some pretty dramatic and exciting series. The NASL playoff games that both saw Huk and hero go down 2-0 in rather simple fashion ended up being exciting come from behind victories for both players. And people who watched the first two games probably watched the last three as well. When a series goes 3-0 in one players favour in a bo7 I just turn it off, and I'm probably not alone in that. It's just too much.
I do have one exception. Teamleagues.
The only reason it works in teamleagues is because it's not the same 2 players grinding themselves into fatigue. It's up to 7 different individuals from both teams. And there's all sorts of other dynamics in the teamleagues as well. Snipers, Aces, Hotstreaks, Coach's decisions. It's not just two players locked in the same matchup grinding out up to seven games against each other.
I think the few series that have gone to seven games have been miraculous. But you're playing the percentages. There's a much better chance of a game going to 5 games then 7. There's a much better chance of those games being good then those 7 games being good. There's a much better chance of the players playing at 100% over 5 games then 7. And there's a much better chance the fans are still going to be interested in your finals after 3 or 4 games then after 5 or 6.
We really need to bring back bo5s. Quality over quantity.
I actually don't mind too much whether it's bo5 or bo7 - one thing the bo7 does is give an epic feel to it which is countered by the "excitement factor" of bo5. Currently, I probably prefer bo7 by a slight margin.
One thing I do feel very strongly about is that I dislike double elimination immensely. I'm so happy that many tournaments are now moving into a GSL style format - groups for early rounds followed by single-elimination playoffs.
the main reason people run Bo7´s is because SC2 is usually complained about in regards to luck. People do not really like to admit that player intuition can be very strong. So basically the Bo7 may last as long as a normal Bo5, but the peace of mind it brings to the community is really important.
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 : )
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.
Off the top of my head, Jaedong vs Fantasy, GGplay vs iris and Effort vs Flash.
Must be at least a couple more in history?
anyway I agree with this completely, Best of 5 is just right imo.
Personally, I don't think Bo5 is good for SC2. The game is very volatile and games often end a few minutes. We only think the game is longer because of the broken Blizzard Clock.
Although I like the argument and the blog, I feel like you're misunderstanding something slightly.
"Increased its perceived quality" is not accurate. You need to keep in mind that this is a forum of teenagers. If you asked any of them if the game was objectively good or bad, they would have said bad. What made it worth watching was the hype. Nobody magically thought the game was objectively good. People just vote from the heart, not the brain.
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.
Except his "valid statistics, data and analysis" do absolutely nothing to support his actual point. The only thing objective about his post is the number of series that have gone to a final game.
Not a single one of his numbers tells me why a series that goes to the final game is automatically better.
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.
Except his "valid statistics, data and analysis" do absolutely nothing to support his actual point. The only thing objective about his post is the number of series that have gone to a final game.
Not a single one of his numbers tells me why a series that goes to the final game is automatically better.
What about the viewer's ranking of the last game in a series?
I've seen so many Bo7s and so few Bo5s yet I prefer Bo5, especially with OP convincing me. I agree that it's different for other sports, though, like basketball. When I played summer basketball, my team was undefeated the whole season yet we lost one game, the finals, and was awarded second place. That's Bo1 but I felt that it was slightly relevant.
Intriguing post yes, but I think that the players' perspective needs to be accounted for here. Do you think the players' prefer Bo5 or Bo7? I would imagine they would prefer Bo7 when it comes down to it, because as you said it is more likely assured that the best player wins. And as you stated in a Bo3 an upset is more likely when you look at things from a statistical standpoint. How great does a win really feel if it's not deserved because you had an edge to take advantage of from the format?
On July 17 2012 16:00 Foolishness wrote: Intriguing post yes, but I think that the players' perspective needs to be accounted for here. Do you think the players' prefer Bo5 or Bo7? I would imagine they would prefer Bo7 when it comes down to it, because as you said it is more likely assured that the best player wins. And as you stated in a Bo3 an upset is more likely when you look at things from a statistical standpoint. How great does a win really feel if it's not deserved because you had an edge to take advantage of from the format?
Do you think they prefer a marginal statistical advantage or the ability to prepare as well as possible for the whole serie ? Pretty easy choice imho...
As a viewer, I can't sit through a whole individual best of seven series. I never will anymore, I'll do something else for a few of the games and see if it's exciting near the end. It's just too much repetition of the same player matchup. Best of 5 to me is the amount for a big final or semifinal where I'll probably watch all the games, and for anything lower stakes than that, I'm not watching more than 3 games.
My sister and I were just talking about this a few days ago too with HSC, and right at the beginning of the finals we were both like "ugh bo7 coming up? I don't think I'm in for that long of an investment more."
Especially on the tail end of games beforehand. On it's own day like TSL or GSL or the BW tournaments, it's a bit more palatable, being the whole event of the day.
I would also really like it if map pools for tournaments could decrease in size. You have between 7-9 maps, and with bigtournaments every other week, how do you expect any real innovations in playstyle take place. With a Bo5, you can basically run your tournament with 5 maps, even 4 if you decide to play one much double (though one does not have to repeat everything what they did in BW, I actually never really liked that). Less games and less maps would really not be a bad thing at all.
The only problem with Bo5 I see is just that SC2 games are so incredibly short, a 3-0 can literally be over in 25 minutes including breaks in between. I really wish the game was a bit slower (well, I said the same thing before in this thread).
On July 17 2012 00:23 Leyra wrote: Really interesting read, my biggest nit to pick is the reference to NBA vs NFL... You really can't compare the two, they're like apples and oranges ;D
Well, I was just trying to show that there are multiple valid philosophies when running a playoff. Things can be exciting even if the better team isn't definitely going to win. Maybe an NBA vs NCAA hoops comparison would have been clearer, but that comparison and the one I used serve the same purpose in my mind.
I would say that UK football has a good example of more games = the better team winning but unfortunately thats not really the case.
In UK football (soccer) we have the FA cup, Premier league (plus division 1,2,3) and the League Cup (now known as the Carling Cup i think). Obviously in the premier league you play every other team twice, at the end of the season the best team wins, nearly always.
In the FA cup they play a 32 team single elim bracket and usually the top atleast 2 of the top 4 teams in the country make the semi finals but sometimes a wildcard team for a lower division make it all the way to the finals even though they would probably end up bottom of the table in the Premier league.
However, in the League Cup they play a 32 team single elim bracket using aggregate score (you play 2 games against your opponent and add the scores together) which SHOULD end up with the better team winning every time but doesn't. This is mainly due to the fact that this cup is seen as less important than the FA cup and Premier league and so teams usually field their young players, rising stars etc instead of their best 11. This often results in "upsets". The finals of this cup are conversely played as a single match, with extra time and penalties to solve a draw.
Penalties are no guarantee of the better team winning. If anything the worse team can deliberately play for a draw to get to penalties as their chances of winning go up by a massive amount.
Simple fact of sports/esports is that in most cases, a league system as used in the UK (all teams play in a single league, no east/west divisions like Basketball or Baseball etc) is the only way to truly guarantee that the best team wins. I've never upderstood the whole play a league then have play-offs thing, its just not how we do things here and I've never understood why its necessary. The only play-offs we have is for a team to be promoted up to a higher division, the teams in 2nd-5th fight it out for the second promotion spot while the team in 1st win promotion automatically.
The Premier league is often decided, as it was this year, on the final day of the season. The only draw back is that when a team outclass all their rivals by a large margin, they can have already guaranteed the championship with anything as much as 10 games left to play.
I see SC2 as more of the tennis model tho, men tennis is usually won by the best player because of the 5 set matches. In 3 set tourneys there are a lot more upsets than in the majors like Wimbledon (sorry Rafa!). I would like to see sc2 tourneys be bo5 all the way thru, including the finals
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.
Out of curiosity, what percentage of games went from 3-1 or 3-0 to 4-3 in either direction?
You can't state in your first point that the last game is vastly superior all the time, and then only include the % chance that the disadvantaged player won. That's silly! Your 96.8% of unregretted sleep time includes snoozing through DRG vs MMA, because the disadvantaged player didn't win in the end.
I don't expect it to be a wildly higher number, just pointing out that it's a poor statistic to give.
I prefer best of five as well. It's for the reason the NCAA men's basketball tournament is beloved, even though the games are far inferior in quality to the NBA.
On July 17 2012 00:23 Leyra wrote: Really interesting read, my biggest nit to pick is the reference to NBA vs NFL... You really can't compare the two, they're like apples and oranges ;D
Well, I was just trying to show that there are multiple valid philosophies when running a playoff. Things can be exciting even if the better team isn't definitely going to win. Maybe an NBA vs NCAA hoops comparison would have been clearer, but that comparison and the one I used serve the same purpose in my mind.
I would say that UK football has a good example of more games = the better team winning but unfortunately thats not really the case.
In UK football (soccer) we have the FA cup, Premier league (plus division 1,2,3) and the League Cup (now known as the Carling Cup i think). Obviously in the premier league you play every other team twice, at the end of the season the best team wins, nearly always.
In the FA cup they play a 32 team single elim bracket and usually the top atleast 2 of the top 4 teams in the country make the semi finals but sometimes a wildcard team for a lower division make it all the way to the finals even though they would probably end up bottom of the table in the Premier league.
However, in the League Cup they play a 32 team single elim bracket using aggregate score (you play 2 games against your opponent and add the scores together) which SHOULD end up with the better team winning every time but doesn't. This is mainly due to the fact that this cup is seen as less important than the FA cup and Premier league and so teams usually field their young players, rising stars etc instead of their best 11. Th is often results in "upsets". The finals of this cup are conversely played as a single match, with extra time and penalties to solve a draw.
Penalties are no guarantee of the better team winning. If anything the worse team can deliberately play for a draw to get to penalties as their chances of winning go up by a massive amount.
Simple fact of sports/esports is that in most cases, a league system as used in the UK (all teams play in a single league, no east/west divisions like Basketball or Baseball etc) is the only way to truly guarantee that the best team wins. I've never upderstood the whole play a league then have play-offs thing, its just not how we do things here and I've never understood why its necessary. The only play-offs we have is for a team to be promoted up to a higher division, the teams in 2nd-5th fight it out for the second promotion spot while the team in 1st win promotion automatically.
The Premier league is often decided, as it was this year, on the final day of the season. The only draw back is that when a team outclass all their rivals by a large margin, they can have already guaranteed the championship with anything as much as 10 games left to play.
I see SC2 as more of the tennis model tho, men tennis is usually won by the best player because of the 5 set matches. In 3 set tourneys there are a lot more upsets than in the majors like Wimbledon (sorry Rafa!). I would like to see sc2 tourneys be bo5 all the way thru, including the finals
There are a lot of reasons why and how post-season play developed as a staple of American sport, but perhaps the most relevant to the present day is that playoffs generate more interest in the sport and revenue, and the team owners, who control the leagues, aren't going to pass that up (see the last-minute decision by MLB to expand their playoffs this year).
The better team winning doesn't matter as much as teams making the most money possible. The National and American Leagues of baseball could be run as single tables, but with the current format, almost half the teams could be playing "meaningful" games in the last month of the season, and a third of the MLB clubs will participate in the playoffs.
On a related note, one of the reasons why there is no promotion and relegation in the professional sports leagues in the USA is that the National League's promise of a "closed shop" of franchises with territorial exclusivity in the late 1870's encouraged prospective owners to invest money in clubs, leading to the NL's domination of the baseball scene for the remainder of the century. Also, back when some of these leagues were forming, they had too few clubs to have more than one tier. Travel costs were prohibitive (the National League's original New York and Philadelphia teams were expelled after the NL's first season for refusing to travel to play the western teams (Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Louisville)).
Just for comparison, England's Football League split into two divisions after reaching a total of 24 clubs in 1892. MLB wouldn't have that many until 1969 (at which point they did their own split, but it was divisionally within each league, creating an extra round of playoffs). The NFL wouldn't get there until its merger with the AFL in 1970, the NBA went fron 23 to 25 in 1988, and the NHL got to 24 in 1992. By then, playoffs were well entrenched, and with TV being a big revenue generator, it would be silly to take guaranteed "big games" off the calendar.
EPT
