On September 18 2012 16:14 huameng wrote: Why is this better than a straight double elimination bracket? Consider a tournament with the cutoff and number of swiss rounds such that anyone with 0 or 1 loss makes the cut and anyone with 2 or more losses is eliminated. (7 rounds of swiss with 256 people, cutting to 16, should accomplish this.) Now a double elimination bracket accomplishes the same thing, except if MLG uses your format, they have to host hundreds of useless games at the same time the real tournament is happening. Instead, MLG would be better off just eliminating everyone else, since they have no interest in discerning the 134th best player in the room from the 135th. You touch on this but just shrug it off; I really think you should take it more seriously.
I isolate a number of problems with straight double-elimination:
How do you determine seeds for the double elimination bracket? Seeds still matter, despite having a second chance in the tournament, because being put into the loser's bracket places you at a fundamental disadvantage for the rest of the tournament.
How do you deal with issues of fairness such as the perceived need for extended series and also the need for the lower bracket competitor in the grand finals to have to win two BoX to finally win.
Your cutoff does not work. In general:
6 round tournament: most 4-2s break
7 round tournament: 4-2s and some 4-3s break
8 round tournament: 5-3s break (maybe some 4-4s)
9 round tournament: 6-3s break (maybe some 5-4s)
And the current MLG system is double-elimination into double-elimination into double-elimination. Please explain to me why this makes sense over even your own suggestion, which is a straight double-elimination tournament. All of Liquipedia wonders.
I obviously don't have any authority over this, but if I had to guess I would say your suggestion is an impossibility based on scheduling and logistics along.
The procedure is designed to take place over two days (faster than the regular three) and with equal to or less than the number of matches compared to regular groups to elimination.
And removing the unnecessary games, your prelim is at this point no different from a predetermined bracket, besides the perfect knowledge about future rounds.
Which fundamentally makes it different from a predetermined bracket.
Even if you cut players after they lose twice due to logistics, I don't see why you would want to switch to a single elimination bracket instead of just continuing with a double elimination bracket! I don't see why that's worth invalidating the fact that, say, the 2nd place person with 7-0 performed a lot better than the 3rd place person with 6-1, yet they share almost equally valuable seeding. Meanwhile, 16th place is also 6-1, and how reliable are the tiebreakers going to be? You bring up a set of tiebreakers that are basically totally valueless, since most people in the 6-1 bracket won't have played each other, and the difference in games won can be at most 1.
Except most everyone who has made it to 6-1 will have potentially hit: 0-0, 1-0 or 0-1, 1-1 or 2-0, 2-1 or 3-0, 3-1 or 4-0, 4-1, or 5-0, 5-1 or 6-0, and 6-1 because of the design. It is true it is not guaranteed that everyone 6-1 will hit everyone else who is 6-1, but this is the point of modified swiss: to get around having to hit every single person in a given pool. Depending on the number of entrants into the tournament, which is left undefined in your example, yes 16th might be 6-1, but the number of players would probably be really high for something like that to happen. You are exaggerating to make a point.
The set of tiebreakers I put forth is directly taken from MLG, and it seems to have worked for them thus far in determining ranks in round-robin groups.
Single-elimination is preferred because it does not disadvantage a theoretical lower bracket competitor in the grand finals, and because seeding has been determined in-tournament for it.
You say that because the 1st seed gets to play the lowest seed, that means the 1st seed deserves to be eliminated if they lose to the 64th seed, let's say. Yet in your tournament, it's perfectly reasonable that two players could play the exact same players, and have the exact same records against them, yet one player (say the 1st seed) could be eliminated while the other player is still in the tournament. To quickly visualize this, imagine Idra is 7-0 and Huk is 6-1, losing only to Stephano early on in the tournament, and Stephano is 6-1 as well. It's perfectly reasonable that Idra loses to Stephano in the first round of single elimination and is out of the tournament, while Huk beats one of Idra's old opponents and advances, even though both of their results are identical up to that point. I don't see how you can classify a tournament like this as fair, when Huk is advancing over Idra simply because he was fortunate enough to run into Stephano before the single elimination.
HuK wouldn't be playing Stephano under my system and with your theoretical, because 6-1 bracket would be playing someone 4-3 in elims.
Your tournament also suffers from some problems that group stage + open bracket solves that I think you didn't mention. The biggest one is that the open bracket can be played in the background while the group stage plays. That way, people will be able to watch the stars duke it out while the unknown v unknown matches play themselves out. In your tournament, the early broadcast would end up being a bunch of slight variations on that game where Sase built a 10 nexus wall against a little kid. The formula tournaments seem to be trying to hit to me is having stars playing meaningful games in the early stages and having an exciting final day, hopefully with many of the stars still around. Your tournament structure doesn't seem to produce as many meaningful games between stars, since lots of their games will be either noob bashing or just for seeding. Then if you cut to a large single-elimination bracket, it's definitely possible all of the stars will fall out, and you'll be left with an underwhelming final few matches. Tournaments really don't want this to happen, and the MLG approach to group stages is a great way to prevent it.
The beauty of this system is it eliminates the need for a separation between an open bracket and the group stage entirely because in effect both are conducted in the same procedure. The way people end up playing their games is based on the current state of play existent, this is not meaningfully affected by tournament design unless the tournament is made up of a series of Bo1s.
High-high power matching ensures that the top players are hitting top players throughout the preliminary bracket. Only an upper tier of players in the player pool make it into elimination, 'stars' is a codeword for 'popular' in this. Whether someone deserves to remain a 'star' if they consistently lose either in prelims or elims is something beyond the scope of this writing.
In my opinion, the best tournament format is what I'll detail below. I understand that it's constrained since there will need to be a large number of computers, but if it's possible, I really think it's the best format. For instance, I really wish that the GSL Prelims will be a swiss tournament but it's probably not done for logistical reasons. Maybe they could've made it an online tournament?
Prelims A swiss style tournament where each game is a bo1. The number of rounds determined by the number of competitors. Lets say it has around 9 to 11 rounds. Tiebreaks may be settled by tiebreak systems, head-to-head or playoffs. The advantage of a Swiss tournament is that it is very good in determining the top half of a tournament - star players will eventually play each other, but they won't eliminate each other.
Group Top 32 from the prelims advances into the group stages. The seedings of the groups will be determined by their performance in the swiss tournament. You can even give advantages to the winner where they can pick a player, etc. The group stages will be done in the GSL format, i.e. bo3 double elimination. I like having groups for ro32 and ro16.
Finals Top 8 plays single elimination bo5 with a bo7 finals.
On September 18 2012 17:47 Azzur wrote: In my opinion, the best tournament format is what I'll detail below. I understand that it's constrained since there will need to be a large number of computers, but if it's possible, I really think it's the best format. For instance, I really wish that the GSL Prelims will be a swiss tournament but it's probably not done for logistical reasons. Maybe they could've made it an online tournament?
Prelims A swiss style tournament where each game is a bo1. The number of rounds determined by the number of competitors. Lets say it has around 9 to 11 rounds. Tiebreaks may be settled by tiebreak systems, head-to-head or playoffs. The advantage of a Swiss tournament is that it is very good in determining the top half of a tournament - star players will eventually play each other, but they won't eliminate each other.
Group Top 32 from the prelims advances into the group stages. The seedings of the groups will be determined by their performance in the swiss tournament. You can even give advantages to the winner where they can pick a player, etc. The group stages will be done in the GSL format, i.e. bo3 double elimination. I like having groups for ro32 and ro16.
Finals Top 8 plays single elimination bo5 with a bo7 finals.
The problem I have with each match being Bo1 is that it influences a player's strategy to be more 'cheesy.' I also don't see the need to have double-elimination in any group to elimination tournament structure, be it traditional or modified swiss.
On September 18 2012 17:49 itsjustatank wrote: The problem I have with each match being Bo1 is that it influences a player's strategy to be more 'cheesy.'
bo1 being a more cheesy format is a myth. The reason it may possibly occur is that if the players are nervous (i.e. the game will make or break them), they may want to play a short game. You can have cheesy games in a bo3 or a bo1 - I remember watching one of the current GSL ro32 groups where it was essentially a cheese-fest. In a swiss tournament, each game is not make-or-break. Anyways, the purpose of the swiss tournament bo1 is to not pick a winner, but rather pick the top32.
On September 18 2012 17:47 Azzur wrote: In my opinion, the best tournament format is what I'll detail below. I understand that it's constrained since there will need to be a large number of computers, but if it's possible, I really think it's the best format. For instance, I really wish that the GSL Prelims will be a swiss tournament but it's probably not done for logistical reasons. Maybe they could've made it an online tournament?
Prelims A swiss style tournament where each game is a bo1. The number of rounds determined by the number of competitors. Lets say it has around 9 to 11 rounds. Tiebreaks may be settled by tiebreak systems, head-to-head or playoffs. The advantage of a Swiss tournament is that it is very good in determining the top half of a tournament - star players will eventually play each other, but they won't eliminate each other.
Group Top 32 from the prelims advances into the group stages. The seedings of the groups will be determined by their performance in the swiss tournament. You can even give advantages to the winner where they can pick a player, etc. The group stages will be done in the GSL format, i.e. bo3 double elimination. I like having groups for ro32 and ro16.
Finals Top 8 plays single elimination bo5 with a bo7 finals.
The problem I have with each match being Bo1 is that it influences a player's strategy to be more 'cheesy.' I also don't see the need to have double-elimination in any group to elimination tournament structure, be it traditional or modified swiss.
The double elimination group stage into single elimination finals GSL concept (originated from the MSL), is a proven format and is much liked by both fans and players. So much so that many major tournaments are now using this format. I consider the format for 32 players "solved" unless another format can prove it's worth.
The only thing we need to solve is how to determine the top 32 players. I argue that the swiss format is the best format is determining a top bracket because each game is not a make-or-break one and the many rounds requires player versatility.
The current GSL format for the top 32 (Code S, A and B) is ok, but I argue that the prelims is a pretty cut throat affair with many star players missing out if they have one bad match or are matched against each other. Hence, I believe the swiss prelims is more "fair". However, of course, the downside of a swiss is the number of computers needed.
You might be right about Bo1 being more cheesy actually being a myth, I still prefer at least two games per round however because match wins can operate as a tiebreaker. This makes it easier to determine seeding for those who break out.
On September 18 2012 17:47 Azzur wrote: In my opinion, the best tournament format is what I'll detail below. I understand that it's constrained since there will need to be a large number of computers, but if it's possible, I really think it's the best format. For instance, I really wish that the GSL Prelims will be a swiss tournament but it's probably not done for logistical reasons. Maybe they could've made it an online tournament?
Prelims A swiss style tournament where each game is a bo1. The number of rounds determined by the number of competitors. Lets say it has around 9 to 11 rounds. Tiebreaks may be settled by tiebreak systems, head-to-head or playoffs. The advantage of a Swiss tournament is that it is very good in determining the top half of a tournament - star players will eventually play each other, but they won't eliminate each other.
Group Top 32 from the prelims advances into the group stages. The seedings of the groups will be determined by their performance in the swiss tournament. You can even give advantages to the winner where they can pick a player, etc. The group stages will be done in the GSL format, i.e. bo3 double elimination. I like having groups for ro32 and ro16.
Finals Top 8 plays single elimination bo5 with a bo7 finals.
The problem I have with each match being Bo1 is that it influences a player's strategy to be more 'cheesy.' I also don't see the need to have double-elimination in any group to elimination tournament structure, be it traditional or modified swiss.
The double elimination group stage into single elimination finals GSL concept (originated from the MSL), is a proven format and is much liked by both fans and players. So much so that many major tournaments are now using this format. I consider the format for 32 players "solved" unless another format can prove it's worth.
The only thing we need to solve is how to determine the top 32 players. I argue that the swiss format is the best format is determining a top bracket because each game is not a make-or-break one and the many rounds requires player versatility.
Essentially stating that something has always been done this way and cannot be changed is not constructive. There is no point in having group stage at all really if double-elimination is the follow up. Double-elimination impeaches the integrity of the seeds and indeed the entire group stage proceeding.
On September 18 2012 18:01 itsjustatank wrote: You might be right about Bo1 being more cheesy actually being a myth, I still prefer at least two games per round however because match wins can operate as a tiebreaker. This makes it easier to determine seeding for those who break out.
On September 18 2012 17:47 Azzur wrote: In my opinion, the best tournament format is what I'll detail below. I understand that it's constrained since there will need to be a large number of computers, but if it's possible, I really think it's the best format. For instance, I really wish that the GSL Prelims will be a swiss tournament but it's probably not done for logistical reasons. Maybe they could've made it an online tournament?
Prelims A swiss style tournament where each game is a bo1. The number of rounds determined by the number of competitors. Lets say it has around 9 to 11 rounds. Tiebreaks may be settled by tiebreak systems, head-to-head or playoffs. The advantage of a Swiss tournament is that it is very good in determining the top half of a tournament - star players will eventually play each other, but they won't eliminate each other.
Group Top 32 from the prelims advances into the group stages. The seedings of the groups will be determined by their performance in the swiss tournament. You can even give advantages to the winner where they can pick a player, etc. The group stages will be done in the GSL format, i.e. bo3 double elimination. I like having groups for ro32 and ro16.
Finals Top 8 plays single elimination bo5 with a bo7 finals.
The problem I have with each match being Bo1 is that it influences a player's strategy to be more 'cheesy.' I also don't see the need to have double-elimination in any group to elimination tournament structure, be it traditional or modified swiss.
The double elimination group stage into single elimination finals GSL concept (originated from the MSL), is a proven format and is much liked by both fans and players. So much so that many major tournaments are now using this format. I consider the format for 32 players "solved" unless another format can prove it's worth.
The only thing we need to solve is how to determine the top 32 players. I argue that the swiss format is the best format is determining a top bracket because each game is not a make-or-break one and the many rounds requires player versatility.
Essentially stating that something has always been done this way and cannot be changed is not constructive. There is no point in having group stage at all really if double-elimination is the follow up. Double-elimination impeaches the integrity of the seeds and indeed the entire group stage proceeding.
Double elimination is not the follow up - the group is a double elimination but the finals (top 8) is single elimination.
If you're talking about the group format being double elimination as affecting the integrity of the seeds, I do acknowledge that this is a possible issue. Hence, some tournaments give special privileges to the group winner (e.g. dreamhack, where the group winner goes directly into the ro8). Alternatively, group winners can be given special privileges, e.g. picking rights.
On September 18 2012 18:01 itsjustatank wrote: You might be right about Bo1 being more cheesy actually being a myth, I still prefer at least two games per round however because match wins can operate as a tiebreaker. This makes it easier to determine seeding for those who break out.
On September 18 2012 18:00 Azzur wrote:
On September 18 2012 17:49 itsjustatank wrote:
On September 18 2012 17:47 Azzur wrote: In my opinion, the best tournament format is what I'll detail below. I understand that it's constrained since there will need to be a large number of computers, but if it's possible, I really think it's the best format. For instance, I really wish that the GSL Prelims will be a swiss tournament but it's probably not done for logistical reasons. Maybe they could've made it an online tournament?
Prelims A swiss style tournament where each game is a bo1. The number of rounds determined by the number of competitors. Lets say it has around 9 to 11 rounds. Tiebreaks may be settled by tiebreak systems, head-to-head or playoffs. The advantage of a Swiss tournament is that it is very good in determining the top half of a tournament - star players will eventually play each other, but they won't eliminate each other.
Group Top 32 from the prelims advances into the group stages. The seedings of the groups will be determined by their performance in the swiss tournament. You can even give advantages to the winner where they can pick a player, etc. The group stages will be done in the GSL format, i.e. bo3 double elimination. I like having groups for ro32 and ro16.
Finals Top 8 plays single elimination bo5 with a bo7 finals.
The problem I have with each match being Bo1 is that it influences a player's strategy to be more 'cheesy.' I also don't see the need to have double-elimination in any group to elimination tournament structure, be it traditional or modified swiss.
The double elimination group stage into single elimination finals GSL concept (originated from the MSL), is a proven format and is much liked by both fans and players. So much so that many major tournaments are now using this format. I consider the format for 32 players "solved" unless another format can prove it's worth.
The only thing we need to solve is how to determine the top 32 players. I argue that the swiss format is the best format is determining a top bracket because each game is not a make-or-break one and the many rounds requires player versatility.
Essentially stating that something has always been done this way and cannot be changed is not constructive. There is no point in having group stage at all really if double-elimination is the follow up. Double-elimination impeaches the integrity of the seeds and indeed the entire group stage proceeding.
Double elimination is not the follow up - the group is a double elimination but the finals (top 8) is single elimination.
If you're talking about the group format being double elimination as affecting the integrity of the seeds, I do acknowledge that this is a possible issue. Hence, some tournaments give special privileges to the group winner (e.g. dreamhack, where the group winner goes directly into the ro8). Alternatively, group winners can be given special privileges, e.g. picking rights.
Calling a double-elimination tournament a group stage has its own issues in terms of semantics. A group stage is inherently a round-robin or swiss procedure. Calling it a group stage is a vestige from a time when people with poor English skills named stages in a tournament. In addition, giving the group winner special privileges other than their seed into a given bracket is way too much intervention on the part of a tournament design.
The design is also way too complex. Swiss into double into single, when Swiss into single using seeds and breaks from Swiss could be executed much more simply in the first place. Playing out a 'group' as a double-elimination eliminates the need for the first tier Swiss procedure in the first place, just run the 'group' as a whole and pick the the top required for the single-elimination. It's almost as egregious as double into double into double.
If this is objectionable, then examine the fact that you've already determined seeding for the entire player field through Swiss.
You reminded me of the time where i played MtG at tournaments where the Swiss style is always used. Awesome write up. Ill try to test your tournament style in some little tournaments. Thanks a lot
I think the problem I have with Double elim brackets are that they are very often anticlimactic. Not just the huge winners bracket advantage, but that the LB finalist has almost always previously played the WB finalist, and previously lost to them. Rematches in such short notice are generally pretty unexciting since everyone goes "Oh well vortix/vibe/creator already lost to stephano/scarlett/squirtle" (even if, in the end, creator beat squirtle in the grand finals of WCS korea, I just wasn't that hyped by it since I'd already watched the exact match a few days earlier)
Also I'd be interested in seeing a percentage of double elim grand finals that are rematches of the WB finals, which is even worse since they're only played a few hours previous in a typical weekend tourney.
There are so many different formats that are possible, especially with a setup that is 1v1, as StarCraft 2 is.
I had hoped to make a similar article to run down some good possibilities, but it'll take time to read through everything you've wrote again to process everything. Tabulation is an interesting idea similar to a concept I have drawn out on an old notepad. Still not sure where it'll take me though.
Even though group of deaths do occur in the first round of tournaments, I just wanted to note that they are less likely than two top contenders meeting at the first round in a bracket, forcing one of them to drop out.
On September 18 2012 20:45 bbm wrote: I think the problem I have with Double elim brackets are that they are very often anticlimactic. Not just the huge winners bracket advantage, but that the LB finalist has almost always previously played the WB finalist, and previously lost to them. Rematches in such short notice are generally pretty unexciting since everyone goes "Oh well vortix/vibe/creator already lost to stephano/scarlett/squirtle" (even if, in the end, creator beat squirtle in the grand finals of WCS korea, I just wasn't that hyped by it since I'd already watched the exact match a few days earlier)
Also I'd be interested in seeing a percentage of double elim grand finals that are rematches of the WB finals, which is even worse since they're only played a few hours previous in a typical weekend tourney.
This is indeed a huge problem with double-elimination, coupled with the fact that the lower bracket competitor has to win two BoX to beat the competitor from the upper bracket. The cards are heavily stacked against the lower bracket player.
There is one activity that regularly uses double-elimination and manages to make the road to the grand finals exciting though, and that is fighting games. This is because the crowd at the event provides hype to the matchups because of the existence generally of previous storyline and intrigue. Commentators on stream also do a good job generally of emphasizing this hype to the stream viewers. In the end, making a tournament exciting is greatly influenced when a tournament organizer is able to articulate and explain the tournament structure to the viewership in a way that makes it compelling to them and keeps them engaged.
On September 18 2012 22:23 JustPassingBy wrote: Even though group of deaths do occur in the first round of tournaments, I just wanted to note that they are less likely than two top contenders meeting at the first round in a bracket, forcing one of them to drop out.
While less likely, having a single group for the prelims and conducting either a round-robin or modified Swiss procedure eliminates the problem entirely.
In competitive Magic the Gathering, this format is used almost exclusively, except it's called modified swiss (cut to top 8 single elimination).
As others have pointed out, if you want to play Bo3 for your swiss rounds, it'll take forever. Not only do you have rounds that might last a really long time for a long series holding everyone else up, but it'll take a ton of rounds. MtG Pro Tours with a few hundred people usually have 12 or 13 or more rounds. Besides this major drawback, I totally favor this format as more exciting and more fair than any other for a limited time mass player event like MLG or Dreamhack or whatever.
edit: I should add that two game series or one game matches are wayyyy better in a swiss environment. Top players will not cheese each other because cheese isn't good at the top level.
And as already pointed out against double-elim... most players drop after they have 2 or more losses anyway, so MLG doesn't have to run a bunch of extraneous matches. This hardly affects the admin overhead of running the event anyway.
A bit of a one-off comment, but I think with the community's insistence that extended series are horrible a clear stand for drama > fairness has been established.
Why high-high and not high-low for intra-record pairings? Assuming the speaker point equivalent is map score. at the end of the day having (in round 4) 9-0's knocking each other down a series seems less preferable than having a 9-0 rewarded by facing a (theoretically) easier opponent who has gone 6-3.
It would be interesting to see something like this occur for 5 rounds and then break to the outrounds/playoffs.
On September 19 2012 18:23 Shaetan wrote: Why high-high and not high-low for intra-record pairings? Assuming the speaker point equivalent is map score. at the end of the day having (in round 4) 9-0's knocking each other down a series seems less preferable than having a 9-0 rewarded by facing a (theoretically) easier opponent who has gone 6-3.
It would be interesting to see something like this occur for 5 rounds and then break to the outrounds/playoffs.
Basically, because I'm following NDT procedure. High-high might seem a bit harsh, but I prefer it to high-low throughout or alternating high-high and high-low for one big reason: I want to limit interventionism in rewarding players to the power-protection they receive in elims. High-high also ensures that the people who break are the absolute best, and it ensures good, competitive, rounds in the prelims.
I've talked to a number of big tournament directors in debate over the years, and I've never gotten concrete answers as to why they pick high-low over high-high, or why they alternate rounds; it's basically just custom. In a similar vein, anyone who wants to use this system is free to use other power-matching types as well.
Be fair — the ideal tournament should provide to competitors a level playing field to the furthest extent possible.
Be reliable — the ideal tournament should return the absolute best competitors in a given pool of fellow competitors as the top placers. The ideal tournament design should also establish a way for these top competitors to prove their position by their play. As such, each and every game in the ideal tournament should be meaningful and contributory to the aforementioned goal.
Be entertaining — the ideal tournament must be conducted in a way that is meaningful and entertaining for the spectating community, while still maintaining the integrity of the previous two points.
Be efficient — the ideal tournament should be easily explained and understood. It is also important that the ideal tournament be reproducible and able to be used by more than one event series or organization. It follows that once an ideal tournament design is achieved, all events seek to employ or at least emulate its design. To achieve this, the ideal tournament design should avoid excessive complexity.
1- I feel that seeding is very important to this aspect. It prevents two top teams from eliminating each other early on. It also allows for more exciting and high level finals. 2/4- I feel like both of these can be covered with good management and planning. With both good management and planning you can be both reliable and efficient. Granted you picked an efficient tournament format. That being said, idk if MLG will ever release a simple tournament bracket. 3- If you can get good casters, good quality production, and advertising, as long as the games are good and at a high enough level I think they should be entertaining.
I loved the Swiss style tournaments back when I used to play a ton of TFT. The automatic B.net Tournament system used to match you up in much the same way -- you always got matched up with people of the same record, or it would broaden the search for similar records after so long. Many times I would open a tournament 1-0, get matched up against people WAY too hard for me, go 1-2, then pull back and end up 5-2 before running into harder people again and finishing the night 5-3. After a prelim where you played 8 games as quickly as you could, they seeded the top 16 into a tournament where 1 winner emerged. (A larger tournament could of course seed more people into the bracket to have more games to cast)
It was fun playing night after night, working my way up from finishing 5-3 every night, to finishing 6-2 because I was finally able to take games off of the top tier players, and eventually hitting that 7-0 mark and seeding high into the tournament bracket.
In short, it does accurately gauge your skill. The reason why MLG won't implement it is because they do NOT design tournaments to be fun and fair to play in (at least, not since Dallas 2011). Since the Columbus 2011 MLG and beyond, the entire focus of the tournament is to always have 2 big names playing against each other, so there's always a game on people are interested in watching. That's the whole reason the Group Stages were invented in the first place -- Nobody was tuning in on Friday night to watch IdrA go up against random Diamond ladder scrub, where interesting games weren't even a possibility until Sunday night. But IdrA vs. MC right off the bat? Plus neither of them had any chance to be eliminated and could be seen multiple times through the weekend? That's what made MLG take off, and was a smart business move, fairness of the tourney be damned.
Swiss style would, again, mean that there's no games worth watching until either late Friday night, or early Saturday morning, when the 4-0 and 5-0 people start facing off against each other. And once again, when the top 32/64/128 were seeded into a bracket, there would be a couple of rounds before your big names started playing against each other again. It would almost surely end up being the best player who emerged victorious, but there would be a lot of "dead air" where nobody is watching inbetween.
Side Note: The MLG format was, again, changed for viewability reasons. In the old format, watching the 2nd/3rd place match play out, you were more or less watching to see who was going to get trounced by the #1 seed -- one guy having already been sent down to the losers bracket by that #1 seed, thereby forcing an extended series the #2 guy would likely not be able to recover from, and the other having fought through many more games and being exhausted going into the finals. With 2 semi-finals, and a Finals + 3rd/4th place match instead, it's a much more compelling ending to the tournament. More compelling to the viewership, and even HARDER for an open bracket player to break into, seeing as how they had to change the group play to be harder for an Open Bracket player to even make it in.
MLG is one of the most entertaining tournaments to watch, but one of the least accessible and most punishing as a player trying to come in from the Open bracket and make a name for yourself. The Swiss/Tabulation style is one of the most fair to the player, but much harder to make good storylines emerge from for 100% of the time. When the best game currently going off is <insert your favorite pro> vs. <random ladder hero>, it doesn't matter if it's Tastosis on ecstacy casting it, nobody's going to watch it, because the outcome is predetermined.
EPT
