|
Maybe a niché topic, but I thought I bring it on before we all get absorbed into full-on EWC Qualifier Mode.
As we all now, Double Elimination is a great way to increase the numbers of games played while also ensuring that the presumed better players don't get dropped out of your tournament by unlucky seeding or one bad series. In return, it might offer less hype and clear direction compared to Single Elimination.
One big problem that plagues DE since forever is how to handle the Grand Finals though. There have been different approaches over time:
Back in the day, when Bo3 was still the standard for things like WC3, there was the an additional series that needed to be played when the Lower Bracket Player won the first Bo3. That was technically fair, as it ensured that the Upper Bracket Player also got atleast one Bo3 to lose, but it always killed the hype a bit. Especially when maps in both Bo3s were similiar.
In SC2, I believe MLG tried a thing were they would just extend the series and use the old score, which I think is a cool idea, but a bit complicated for the viewer. The process of "Finals is Bo5, but if the LB player wins there is an additional Bo3" as HomeStory Cup did for a while also feels a bit awkward.
DotA 2 and LoL adress the problem even more direct: There simply is just no advantage for the UB Player at all, except for having to play fewer series and getting more time to prepare.
And then there is the dreaded "one Map advantage" ESL is currently using for their Regionals, as have many other TOs before. It is a neat thing, but it also makes Bo7 a bit awkward for my taste, since it technically isn't a Bo7 anymore.
All of these solutions didn't feel particularly right to me, so while I originally loved DE, I have settled for enjoying SE much more. But I recently noted that Riot found a cool way of adressing the problem: For their Valorant Shanghai Masters, the UB Team simply got a veto-advantage. So instead of both teams voting one map (for a Bo5 and a 7er-Mappool), the UB Team got both vetoes.
It's an advantage for sure, but after that, it is a completly fair and equal game between both teams.
Now, after all this wind-up, I wonder if this would be an option for SC2 aswell? Just give the UB-player two vetoes, to veto it down from 9 Maps to the 7 that are needed? Or when the finals is just Bo5, maybe do a 3-1 Vetosplit?
Even if there are completly broken maps in the pool you would want to veto at all cost - it is still better to play a map than just getting a default loss, right?
|
It’s a neat suggestion
Either UB gets both vetos and /or UB gets to choose the maps to play in his order
Basically the LB gets no say whatsoever in the maps during the grand final
|
Veto advantage doesnt matter nearly enough in sc2 for this to truly matter. Imo HSC got it right when they had the bo5/bo3 final thing. UB player has to be able to lose a series or it always favors LB player.
|
On July 02 2024 09:18 Luolis wrote:
Veto advantage doesnt matter nearly enough in sc2 for this to truly matter. Imo HSC got it right when they had the bo5/bo3 final thing. UB player has to be able to lose a series or it always favors LB player.
Depends on the map pool, but at least in this map pool I think there are some maps where certain races have significant advantages. Zerg really doesn't like playing Ghost River and Dynasty vs Terran, for example, while T really doesn't like playing post-youth against Zerg. None of these maps are truly "free wins", but not having to play on any of the maps that are tough in the matchup is significant imo. Especially combined with not having to play as many matches.
Other map pools yeah, veto advantages isn't much.
|
I like the idea about having additional map vetoes.
I've thought about this before and my idea would be in a bo7, rather than the WB starting with a 1-0, a bo1 ace match only occurs if the LB wins 4-3. If the LB wins by 4-2 (or better) then the match goes to the LB. This makes the WB advantage less than a 1-0 because at 3-3 the match is still live.
|
Vetoes is an interesting approach i didn't think of or hear before.
But I think i like that if the loser wins, they have to play another Bo7. It doesn't take away the hype for me, it just means more epic SC2 to watch IMO, with even footing now.
However one of the approaches you listed i like too, where the finals is Bo7 but if the loser's bracket guy wins then instead of resetting to another Bo7, it's just like a Bo3. Kind of like a tiebreaker thing.
But personally, i'm fine with an extra Bo7. It won't happen all the time and it just seems the fairest to me.
|
The best solution is Single Elim
|
Double Bo5 (2nd only if won by player from loser's) is my preferred simply because it follows the logic of double-elimination. The only issue comes from if you have a 5-game set followed by a 5 game set, which can be EXTREMELY long. Double Bo7 would be too long. But double-Bo5 is a nice compromise and it feels right. This is how essentially all fighting game tournaments do it. It never feels unfair, and when you get the reset, it's really exciting. It also leads to some interesting dynamics as they are forced to replay / re-veto some maps. Some people think it doesn't have the same "excitement" when someone from winners just takes the first set and its over, but I think that's generally true of anyone winning from the winner's side convincingly.
I find arbitrary advantages (+1 map adv, veto adv, etc.) extremely unsatisfying, and think they are a poor solution.
|
Northern Ireland24257 Posts
Interesting topic!
I’m unsure what my favoured approach is, only that I really dislike the UB player starting up a map.
You end up where the losing player may not actually lose, but draw the grand final which isn’t super satisfying at all.
And the UB bracket player doesn’t get to use their extra life, unlike every other player who made it to the knockout bracket. So if they’re the one to lose they can be the only player in playoffs to lose one series and be out. Despite the 1 set advantage that doesn’t feel too fair just on a consistency basis.
Extra vetoes is interesting but a lot of map pools have quite a lot of similar maps, so it might not be a big advantage. Also I think you run into a consistency problem again. The UB player gets an advantage, but it’s a different one to what everyone else got.
Overall, I think I prefer some kind of 2x BoX approach where the UB player can lose the first one, it maintains the ‘extra life’ element of double elimination all the way up to the finals and I think just feels better to me from both a consistency and a competitive fairness angle.
|
"Finals" BO5, with a BO3 (or even BO1 sudden death if we gotta go fast!) if the upper bracket player loses is the most fair and consistent format in my opinion.
You can tune the number of games a lot of time / hype levels are an issue, and it keeps the "everyone gets two lives" rule in a neat way.
Also, more opportunities at a tournament ending game is always cool.
|
Talking from personal experience where i actually played in amateur tournaments in a different game where we tried Double Elimination, Swiss System, among with normal group phase+single elim playoffs style, i am totally against double elimination. I admit the concept looks very cool at the beginning, we were also really hyped. But how it turned out in reality is a different thing. My biggest issue is, that double elimination format completely removes the surprise element of the game. You can play out your heart and win against a supposedly better opponent and the double elimination would just nullify it.
Regarding op's argument "while also ensuring that the presumed better players don't get dropped out of your tournament by unlucky seeding or one bad series" is also quite invalid for me. Anyone who has a bad series drops out, period. It's fair that way. Why should we tailor tournament formats further to suit the top players only?
Just translate last GSL finals into this double elimination format. It means the Maru Dark final firstly is only an Upper Bracket Final. Dark wins 4-1, tossing Maru into Lower Bracket finals, where Maru would play against the winner of the Creator/Cure match. If we assume he would win the LB match, he'd have plenty of time to rewatch the replays from his losses against Dark, maybe even consult with some of his friends and adjust his builds/plug his holes for the rematch vs Dark. I don't think this would be good.
|
I'm not sure if there needs to be an advantage, as far as I'm concerned the eliminated person goes on to the finals and gets revived.
The 1-0 is not bad, because at least the loser of the finals cannot lose while having a winning record vs. the winner of the tournament, which is possible with the bo5+bo3.
|
Northern Ireland24257 Posts
On July 03 2024 03:34 kajtarp wrote:
Talking from personal experience where i actually played in amateur tournaments in a different game where we tried Double Elimination, Swiss System, among with normal group phase+single elim playoffs style, i am totally against double elimination. I admit the concept looks very cool at the beginning, we were also really hyped. But how it turned out in reality is a different thing. My biggest issue is, that double elimination format completely removes the surprise element of the game. You can play out your heart and win against a supposedly better opponent and the double elimination would just nullify it.
Regarding op's argument "while also ensuring that the presumed better players don't get dropped out of your tournament by unlucky seeding or one bad series" is also quite invalid for me. Anyone who has a bad series drops out, period. It's fair that way. Why should we tailor tournament formats further to suit the top players only?
Just translate last GSL finals into this double elimination format. It means the Maru Dark final firstly is only an Upper Bracket Final. Dark wins 4-1, tossing Maru into Lower Bracket finals, where Maru would play against the winner of the Creator/Cure match. If we assume he would win the LB match, he'd have plenty of time to rewatch the replays from his losses against Dark, maybe even consult with some of his friends and adjust his builds/plug his holes for the rematch vs Dark. I don't think this would be good.
I think it depends on the field of your tournament as well.
For us doing tournaments we had big gaps between our field, so double elimination was nice, players weren’t just out of the tournament if they drew one of the champ contenders and they could get another bite at it and maybe a game casted.
On the flipside if the GM player(s) who had 4/500 MMR on the next tier actually loses a series, well they’re still alive and it’s really unlikely it happens twice. Which is absolutely a downside for a bit of hype. I don’t think it even happened once all that often in our decade+ and never twice
If we had more time sometimes I think Swiss into single elim woulda kinda served our dual purpose of giving lesser players games while injecting more jeopardy into the playoff side when there’s real skill gaps.
I’d be interested to see how it worked out in various SC2 tournies and what the breakdown of UB versus LB winners looks like actually come to think of it
|
Very interesting and quite controversial topic, indeed. Obviously DE >>> SE, so if we only had a neat way of addressing the WB advantage problem it would be a perfect format..
Fighting games just do full bracket reset, so WB player needs to win one bo5 while the LB player needs to win two, which is the most fair approach, but probably only possible in fighting games, where the sets take much less time to finish than in any other games..
1 game advantage for WB is.. not ideal.. but I don't hate it. Bo7/bo3 feels awfully awkward.. Let's say LB player wins 4-0 but then loses the other series 0-2, so he won two more games than he lost but still ultimayely lost the Grand Finals.. Nah, I don't like it. It would have to be two Bo7s or Bo5s or Bo3s. Bo3s sound the most doable - time wise, but bo3 is not enough games for epic Grand Finals, imo. Coming up with an elegant solution to this problem is damn hard.. Idk, I kinda feel like the 1 map advantage for WB player is the best idea we currently have, honestly.
|
On July 03 2024 03:46 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 03:34 kajtarp wrote:
Talking from personal experience where i actually played in amateur tournaments in a different game where we tried Double Elimination, Swiss System, among with normal group phase+single elim playoffs style, i am totally against double elimination. I admit the concept looks very cool at the beginning, we were also really hyped. But how it turned out in reality is a different thing. My biggest issue is, that double elimination format completely removes the surprise element of the game. You can play out your heart and win against a supposedly better opponent and the double elimination would just nullify it.
Regarding op's argument "while also ensuring that the presumed better players don't get dropped out of your tournament by unlucky seeding or one bad series" is also quite invalid for me. Anyone who has a bad series drops out, period. It's fair that way. Why should we tailor tournament formats further to suit the top players only?
Just translate last GSL finals into this double elimination format. It means the Maru Dark final firstly is only an Upper Bracket Final. Dark wins 4-1, tossing Maru into Lower Bracket finals, where Maru would play against the winner of the Creator/Cure match. If we assume he would win the LB match, he'd have plenty of time to rewatch the replays from his losses against Dark, maybe even consult with some of his friends and adjust his builds/plug his holes for the rematch vs Dark. I don't think this would be good. I think it depends on the field of your tournament as well. For us doing tournaments we had big gaps between our field, so double elimination was nice, players weren’t just out of the tournament if they drew one of the champ contenders and they could get another bite at it and maybe a game casted. On the flipside if the GM player(s) who had 4/500 MMR on the next tier actually loses a series, well they’re still alive and it’s really unlikely it happens twice. Which is absolutely a downside for a bit of hype. I don’t think it even happened once all that often in our decade+ and never twice If we had more time sometimes I think Swiss into single elim woulda kinda served our dual purpose of giving lesser players games while injecting more jeopardy into the playoff side when there’s real skill gaps. I’d be interested to see how it worked out in various SC2 tournies and what the breakdown of UB versus LB winners looks like actually come to think of it
Would Oliveiras world championship win happen in a Double Elim format? High chance not. Ragnarok beated Serral 3-2 and knocked him out. He'd have just gone trough Lower Bracket not even mentioning both her0 or Maru would have had a chance for a rematch after getting spanked by Oliveira. Same question for soO's IEM win. Or any sOs win, when he caught his enemies's pants down and suprised them with his builds? This list could go on really long. Would these have happened in DE format? How many iconic and surprising wins could have been nullified with the DE format from the past that are now part of SC2's history? So ya'll can talk about how great and amazing DE is or would be, it will always stay a big freaking no for me, and i hope we never see this format in big tournaments.
|
Northern Ireland24257 Posts
On July 03 2024 04:05 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2024 03:46 WombaT wrote:On July 03 2024 03:34 kajtarp wrote:
Talking from personal experience where i actually played in amateur tournaments in a different game where we tried Double Elimination, Swiss System, among with normal group phase+single elim playoffs style, i am totally against double elimination. I admit the concept looks very cool at the beginning, we were also really hyped. But how it turned out in reality is a different thing. My biggest issue is, that double elimination format completely removes the surprise element of the game. You can play out your heart and win against a supposedly better opponent and the double elimination would just nullify it.
Regarding op's argument "while also ensuring that the presumed better players don't get dropped out of your tournament by unlucky seeding or one bad series" is also quite invalid for me. Anyone who has a bad series drops out, period. It's fair that way. Why should we tailor tournament formats further to suit the top players only?
Just translate last GSL finals into this double elimination format. It means the Maru Dark final firstly is only an Upper Bracket Final. Dark wins 4-1, tossing Maru into Lower Bracket finals, where Maru would play against the winner of the Creator/Cure match. If we assume he would win the LB match, he'd have plenty of time to rewatch the replays from his losses against Dark, maybe even consult with some of his friends and adjust his builds/plug his holes for the rematch vs Dark. I don't think this would be good. I think it depends on the field of your tournament as well. For us doing tournaments we had big gaps between our field, so double elimination was nice, players weren’t just out of the tournament if they drew one of the champ contenders and they could get another bite at it and maybe a game casted. On the flipside if the GM player(s) who had 4/500 MMR on the next tier actually loses a series, well they’re still alive and it’s really unlikely it happens twice. Which is absolutely a downside for a bit of hype. I don’t think it even happened once all that often in our decade+ and never twice If we had more time sometimes I think Swiss into single elim woulda kinda served our dual purpose of giving lesser players games while injecting more jeopardy into the playoff side when there’s real skill gaps. I’d be interested to see how it worked out in various SC2 tournies and what the breakdown of UB versus LB winners looks like actually come to think of it Would Oliveiras world championship win happen in a Double Elim format? High chance not. Ragnarok beated Serral 3-2 and knocked him out. He'd have just gone trough Lower Bracket not even mentioning both her0 or Maru would have had a chance for a rematch after getting spanked by Oliveira. Same question for soO's IEM win. Or any sOs win, when he caught his enemies's pants down and suprised them with his builds? This list could go on really long. Would these have happened in DE format? How many iconic and surprising wins could have been nullified with the DE format from the past that are now part of SC2's history? So ya'll can talk about how great and amazing DE is or would be, it will always stay a big freaking no for me, and i hope we never see this format in big tournaments.
I think it makes sense to have in smaller tournaments as you want the better players to make it through to your Katowice’s etc and then I think single elimination adds a lot of jeopardy and excitement to the really big events.
|
I'll always prefer the traditional double-elimination format, instead of weird, unintuitive, inconsistent changes in the grand finals. Everyone should get the same second life / second attempt. I never saw a good reason to remove the second life from the undefeated winner's side and replace it with map vetoes or an extra game lead in the grand finals or a different advantage (or, the most cruel: no advantage at all).
If you make it to the grand finals without losing a series, then you still have your second life available in case you lose your first life. Period. Your opponent from the loser's side has already used their extra life to meet you in the grand finals, since they've already lost one series, so they still have to beat your first life - which then would make it even - and then you both would be on your final attempts (in a final sudden-death series).
That's the original, pure, consistent double-elimination structure for every player, and I never liked the idea of undermining it at the very end of the tournament, just to give the players in the grand finals extra advantages or disadvantages that previous players didn't have. Replacing *fairness* with something that has *more hype* is a decision that cheats the actual participants, which I'm against.
If you want to completely ignore the double-elimination format in favor of the single-elimination format or the 100%-round-robin format or something else, then that's one thing. No format is perfect. But if your tournament is going to be double-elimination, then make it a true, fair double-elimination format, and that includes the grand finals.
|
I've never really understood why the upper bracket player has to have an advantage. Particularly in StarCraft where playing less games is already very beneficial especially for T/P. To me the extra life argument is weak because group results that feed into brackets already cause that discrepancy. It's entirely possible for a player who goes 2-3 in a group to end up in a completely equal state to someone who went 5-0. If they match in the finals you could easily argue using the same logic that the 5-0 player deserves an extra life because groups could be looked at as just an additional part of the overall bracket.
|
On July 03 2024 10:39 JJH777 wrote:
I've never really understood why the upper bracket player has to have an advantage.
Because they haven't used their extra life yet. They're being given the exact same opportunity as everyone else: they're allowed to lose one series without being eliminated from the tournament. That's the rule, by definition, of a double-elimination format. They just haven't needed to invoke it as early as anyone else, because they've been playing better than everyone else. Just because you're the last person to use the bonus doesn't mean you should lose the bonus. It's a matter of fairness, as opposed to replacing parts of a double-elimination series with ridiculous rules that only affect some of the competitors, for the sake of maybe, subjectively, entertaining some viewers.
To me the extra life argument is weak because group results that feed into brackets already cause that discrepancy.
That's an issue you have with pools/groups that may or may not precede a double-elimination format, not an issue with the double-elimination format itself.
Tournament creators may opt for other formats besides double-elimination (and that's fine too), but this idea that we should do a normal, equitable double-elimination for the first 95% of the tournament, only to then screw over the remaining competitors at the end by arbitrarily changing the rules, sabotages the hard work and skill of the final two players. Let's give one of the finalists a one-game lead because they're going to play the rest of the tournament with one hand tied behind their back, and the other finalist can choose every map because they'll also be hopping on one foot! That might be amusing to some viewers who want to see chaos instead of the best player winning, but these are actual, hard-working competitors, fighting for prize pools. Money and careers are at stake.
If a tournament creator wants to have goofy rules, then the whole tournament should have goofy rules, so that all players (not just the finalists) have to deal with them. That could also be interesting in its own right, but that sort of creative, crazy, chaotic tournament doesn't really seem to be what people are discussing here.
|
Canada8988 Posts
Interesting discussion. Maybe, maybe someday I'll finish my text on tournament formats, but in short, I'm very much in favor of single elim to create more variety within tournaments.
Regarding map vetoes, I think we should eliminate them and use a loser map pick with a preselected final map instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
