|
Northern Ireland25071 Posts
Terrible format, argh.
You spend 2 days, good Bo5 matches to determine 3/4 Ro4 placements but almost nothing else. And everyone has a second shot
Then a Bo3 gauntlet to determine all other placement? With two players who only come in at that stage?
My issue is dual, I think it has both competitive fairness issues but also viewer investment issues as well.
In a regular tournament format, sure it’s likely a Serral is a lock for the top 4 usually. But there’s still a lot of interest in who’s placing where, or an upset can happen.
Having a mini-tournament essentially for the Ro4 first, with no graduating rewards and extra lives? One, a Serral may not be in good enough shape to win, but he’s almost certain to push for that Ro4 slot. Two there’s so little reward for performing well but falling short, that the stakes in other matches become basically meaningless. There’s no ‘oh this is a sick run, I didn’t expect this guy to beat Serral, and he didn’t but hey they made the Ro8’ facet to it.
Compounding this you have the ‘extra lives’ problem be at its most uneven I’ve yet seen. SHINTime have one shot. Dark and Clem also have one shot, punished by their excellence as it were. The rest of the field have 3!
I wouldn’t even mind a brutal knockout gauntlet quite so much but they flipped to Bo3 for it?
It’s like they picked the worst aspects of each format and mashed them together. Round robins are good for rewarding consistently good players, but they can lack a bit of jeopardy at times. You can get dead rubbers that are meaningless in effect too. Single elim is exciting, but brutal and you can find with a few upsets the knockouts suffer with maybe better players eliminated.
These are judgements to try and balance, but this format? You seemingly mash together the relative predicability of a round robin stage, with the unforgiving but exciting world of a single elim bracket. But at different stages, which is odd
Not that I’d rant about this format or anything…
|
As said before by me and countless others: I think it is so infuriating because the fix is so easy - stagger the Knockout Bracket (and make it Bo5). That alone makes this an incredible system, in which every single match has stakes
|
Canada8989 Posts
On August 18 2024 04:44 WombaT wrote:
Terrible format, argh.
You spend 2 days, good Bo5 matches to determine 3/4 Ro4 placements but almost nothing else. And everyone has a second shot
Then a Bo3 gauntlet to determine all other placement? With two players who only come in at that stage?
My issue is dual, I think it has both competitive fairness issues but also viewer investment issues as well.
In a regular tournament format, sure it’s likely a Serral is a lock for the top 4 usually. But there’s still a lot of interest in who’s placing where, or an upset can happen.
Having a mini-tournament essentially for the Ro4 first, with no graduating rewards and extra lives? One, a Serral may not be in good enough shape to win, but he’s almost certain to push for that Ro4 slot. Two there’s so little reward for performing well but falling short, that the stakes in other matches become basically meaningless. There’s no ‘oh this is a sick run, I didn’t expect this guy to beat Serral, and he didn’t but hey they made the Ro8’ facet to it.
Compounding this you have the ‘extra lives’ problem be at its most uneven I’ve yet seen. SHINTime have one shot. Dark and Clem also have one shot, punished by their excellence as it were. The rest of the field have 3!
I wouldn’t even mind a brutal knockout gauntlet quite so much but they flipped to Bo3 for it?
It’s like they picked the worst aspects of each format and mashed them together. Round robins are good for rewarding consistently good players, but they can lack a bit of jeopardy at times. You can get dead rubbers that are meaningless in effect too. Single elim is exciting, but brutal and you can find with a few upsets the knockouts suffer with maybe better players eliminated.
These are judgements to try and balance, but this format? You seemingly mash together the relative predicability of a round robin stage, with the unforgiving but exciting world of a single elim bracket. But at different stages, which is odd
Not that I’d rant about this format or anything…
Pretty much how I feel, great post.
|
I think this format would be a bit more fair, if the Finals were bo9, and the number of match losses through the tournament counted as map loss.
If herO got to the Finals, he would begin 0 - 2 against Dark, and 1 - 2 against Serral, for example.
Making it through the winners bracket would reward one nicely at the end, while still keeping the torch alight for the underdog from losers bracket.
|
On August 18 2024 06:08 Locutos wrote:
I think this format would be a bit more fair, if the Finals were bo9, and the number of match losses through the tournament counted as map loss.
If herO got to the Finals, he would begin 0 - 2 against Dark, and 1 - 2 against Serral, for example.
Making it through the winners bracket would reward one nicely at the end.
It's the biggest tournament of all time and one player could potentially start with a 2-map-advantage against another player who he never even was in the same bracket with? Doesn't feel right...
The finals are Bo9 btw
|
On August 18 2024 06:11 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2024 06:08 Locutos wrote:
I think this format would be a bit more fair, if the Finals were bo9, and the number of match losses through the tournament counted as map loss.
If herO got to the Finals, he would begin 0 - 2 against Dark, and 1 - 2 against Serral, for example.
Making it through the winners bracket would reward one nicely at the end.
It's the biggest tournament of all time and one player could potentially start with a 2-map-advantage against another player who he never even was in the same bracket with? Doesn't feel right... The finals are Bo9 btw
Only if one got there losing to absolutely no one, and the other having two losses at the tournament.
If the campaing in said tournament shouldnt matter, then why not go for a simple direct bracket?
I think that the complex way i proposed gives a chance for complex story lines, while mantaining a fairness to it.
|
On August 18 2024 06:11 Balnazza wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2024 06:08 Locutos wrote:
I think this format would be a bit more fair, if the Finals were bo9, and the number of match losses through the tournament counted as map loss.
If herO got to the Finals, he would begin 0 - 2 against Dark, and 1 - 2 against Serral, for example.
Making it through the winners bracket would reward one nicely at the end.
It's the biggest tournament of all time and one player could potentially start with a 2-map-advantage against another player who he never even was in the same bracket with? Doesn't feel right... The finals are Bo9 btw
A way to dilute that advantage could be that the one who starts behind chooses the maps that would count as losses?
|
On August 17 2024 22:36 Mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2024 22:17 Nakajin wrote:On August 17 2024 21:55 Mizenhauer wrote:On August 17 2024 20:51 Nakajin wrote:My mushy principles mean I'm reduced to following ESWC only through the TL thread, but I am a bit disappointed in myself that I have a 90% done article about tournament formats sleeping on my computer for two months  Talk about missing your moment... In short, no the format is not reasonable, for three reasons. 1. Way too complicated. There's nothing remotely intuitive in the format, you basically cannot decipher who will play who next without Liquipedia. It just creates confusion all around and reduces excitement. 2. The format works to reduce the stakes. Many matches have little or no bearing on the unfolding of the tournament (most of the group matches), and players who have already lost multiple matches are still in the running for the trophy, which begs the question of why viewers were supposed to get invested in those matches in the first place. Losing a match should mean an elimination from the tournament in most cases, and if not at least a major setback in your chance to get the trophy. That's how you create drama and memorable matches, no one will remember group stage matches in a couple of days because they were mostly meaningless. 3. In relation with the second point, the format is skewed to favor the favorites and create the most predictable end results. By giving players second and third chances, you erase statistical anomalies and allow the best players to dodge their bad matchups. For example, if we had a more cutthroat tournament format, we could have the overwhelming favorite (Serral) out as he's drawn a bad matchup in Clem, same for Maru. It would have been an exciting, controversial and most of all memorable turn of events. Instead, they are both still there, with Serral just a match away from the grand final. Meanwhile, underdogs get close to nothing for their good work. Astrea put on a great pvt performance to pull off the upset against Gumiho, but the tournament format is set up to negate his win. There was essentially no chance Astrea was ever pulling 3 major upsets in a row, meaning he fell to the knockout stage all the same, and to make things worse he didn't even get to parade the pelt of Gumiho, seeing as the terran was still in the lower bracket. Now he's out of the tournament and got the same prize money as if he had gone 0-3. There's other stuff I'd like to touch on, but TLDR, a world championship format should look as close to this as possible: + Show Spoiler +(ps; I'm aware I've somewhat deviated from the OP question. Regarding it, it is kind of dumb that there's no knockout bracket seeding in relation to group stage performance, but I do prefer it as it at least creates a little bit of chance of a surprising and meaningful upset. However, the solution IMO was just to not have a group stage.) Who would have thought that a bracket is the best way to format 1v1 competition after decades of use in popular sports. Not SC2 organizers apparently. Just in the 23-24 season, there have been 9 different formats for premier tournaments, and only a single tournament used a simple bracket Everyone wants to reinvent the wheel. A note worth adding. As a fan of college wrestling (aka I'm very used to their format for tournaments), I appreciate that, should you lose in the winner's bracket, that the highest you can place is third (by winning the losers bracket). Instead, first and second place are determined solely on advancing through the winner's bracket). I find it extremely problematic once you try to devise a system where the loser's bracket gives you a way to make it back to the finals because you have to differentiate the winner of the winner's bracket vs the loser's finals winner since the upper bracket player is undefeated. And, that's probably the easiest problem to solve.
Honestly, having to play 2 extra extremely high stakes matches is plenty. Other tournaments have tried rewarding the upper bracket winner and it generally just felt unfair. Making it to the Ro4 and having your lives "reset" feels fine. Same way yellow cards get forgiven in the semis in the Euros/World Cup.
It's the rest of the bracket that's trash. Should just' ve ben proper seeding into a staggered knockout bracket, with Bo5s. Sure, we probably wouldn't have had the drama of Maru getting knocked out, but we also would have avoided the heartbreak of Oliveira getting the lowest reward, same as coffee. And then find a better way of seeding SHINtime into there so they get to play more than a single Bo3.
|
On August 18 2024 08:02 Acrofales wrote:
Honestly, having to play 2 extra extremely high stakes matches is plenty. Other tournaments have tried rewarding the upper bracket winner and it generally just felt unfair. Making it to the Ro4 and having your lives "reset" feels fine. Same way yellow cards get forgiven in the semis in the Euros/World Cup.
It's the rest of the bracket that's trash. Should just' ve ben proper seeding into a staggered knockout bracket, with Bo5s. Sure, we probably wouldn't have had the drama of Maru getting knocked out, but we also would have avoided the heartbreak of Oliveira getting the lowest reward, same as coffee. And then find a better way of seeding SHINtime into there so they get to play more than a single Bo3.
No this format is not fine. Imagine if herO beats Clem. Clem is out, herO in finals. After herO is on his 3rd "life" and Clem was undefeated this far. I'm not saying against herO, because i absolutely love the guy and he played phenomenal today. But giving 2nd and 3rd life to someone while others doesn't even get 2nd life is just not fair. Group phase+single elim is still the best format.
|
On August 18 2024 08:17 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2024 08:02 Acrofales wrote:
Honestly, having to play 2 extra extremely high stakes matches is plenty. Other tournaments have tried rewarding the upper bracket winner and it generally just felt unfair. Making it to the Ro4 and having your lives "reset" feels fine. Same way yellow cards get forgiven in the semis in the Euros/World Cup.
It's the rest of the bracket that's trash. Should just' ve ben proper seeding into a staggered knockout bracket, with Bo5s. Sure, we probably wouldn't have had the drama of Maru getting knocked out, but we also would have avoided the heartbreak of Oliveira getting the lowest reward, same as coffee. And then find a better way of seeding SHINtime into there so they get to play more than a single Bo3. No this format is not fine. Imagine if herO beats Clem. Clem is out, herO in finals. After herO is on his 3rd "life" and Clem was undefeated this far. I'm not saying against herO, because i absolutely love the guy and he played phenomenal today. But giving 2nd and 3rd life to someone while others doesn't even get 2nd life is just not fair. Group phase+single elim is still the best format.
Eh, Clem would've had two days of downtime to practice and not show his builds, while herO had 2 days of extremely tense, nervous, high stakes battles and showing all his best PvT builds against Cure (and to a lesser extent Gumiho and Spirit). That's enough advantage to Clem.
|
On August 18 2024 08:17 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2024 08:02 Acrofales wrote:
Honestly, having to play 2 extra extremely high stakes matches is plenty. Other tournaments have tried rewarding the upper bracket winner and it generally just felt unfair. Making it to the Ro4 and having your lives "reset" feels fine. Same way yellow cards get forgiven in the semis in the Euros/World Cup.
It's the rest of the bracket that's trash. Should just' ve ben proper seeding into a staggered knockout bracket, with Bo5s. Sure, we probably wouldn't have had the drama of Maru getting knocked out, but we also would have avoided the heartbreak of Oliveira getting the lowest reward, same as coffee. And then find a better way of seeding SHINtime into there so they get to play more than a single Bo3. No this format is not fine. Imagine if herO beats Clem. Clem is out, herO in finals. After herO is on his 3rd "life" and Clem was undefeated this far. I'm not saying against herO, because i absolutely love the guy and he played phenomenal today. But giving 2nd and 3rd life to someone while others doesn't even get 2nd life is just not fair. Group phase+single elim is still the best format.
So GSL was never fair? That's an interesting thesis almost 15 years deep into SC2s history...
|
I don't know why the players from the qualifiers-SHIN and ShowTime are different from others. While it is hard to say whether it is disadvantageous for them to enter the competition later than others or not.
It is acceptable that the high-level players can compete before the main game to take a leap straight to the final stage. However, the games played prior to the main game should be less valued even just in terms of format.
When it comes to EWC, it turns out to be: the prior competition has 16 players with the double emilination and bo5 but the main competition which determines the ranking of the players has 16 players with single emilination and bo3?
It seems like the compitition is just held for the Final Four and disregards all the other 14 players even if there may be only one match distinction between them.
I think that's where the problem lies.
|
There are players that benefits from 1) chaotic events where you play multiple series in a day, like those weekenders marathons. Then there are players that benefits from 2) more preparation based games like GSL.
Preparation based games brings out the best of the best, and with a lot of mind game and strategy. Whereas weekenders bring mechanics and thinking on the spot.
I would have loved if they were able to bring both into the tournament. Have the beginning stage being more 2) preparation based. Then knockout stage being more 1) chaotic 1 day marathon. Not sure how it would work logistically, but that would be cool.
|
To preface let me say I was extremely pessimistic of this format going into EWC - I thought it was gonna be a dumpster fire and a half before the tournament started, but actually watching it has totally changed my perspective.
Almost everyone here seem to be judging the format based on how they imagine they'd perceive it if they were competing. I don't think the competitors were the primary targets of the format - the viewership was. I haven't seen a match that didn't feel like life or death. The Groupstage days felt that way because the Knockout Bracket looked impossible, and the KB did because it was actually bo3 sudden death. Now we're going to get the semis tomorrow with the 4 people who actually performed the best - no one missed out because they got a shit draw against Serral in the Round of 16 or whatever. Do you know how rare that is? Everyone in the semis earned the hell out of it because of how they played each day this week, and all of the many, many matches played were intense for both the viewers and the players. I've NEVER seen so many players get so emotional at every loss and win before. Not at GSL or WCS, not at Kato, and even not at the ultimate pinnacle of competitive Starcraft, the premiere of premieres known only as 'Zombiegrub's Safehouse'.
I'm not saying the bracket is perfect. It has flaws and it's rough on the 'close-but-not-quite' players. But there are several things this format does extremely well and I think those should be acknowledged too!
On August 17 2024 20:51 Nakajin wrote:
My mushy principles mean I'm reduced to following ESWC only through the TL thread
I read this as, "I have no earthly idea what I'm talking about, but here's my opinion anyway..."
You'd have to watch the tournament as it plays out to have any idea why it's structured the way it is.
|
|
|
I think the format is good but it could've been great with some tweaks - I would've made the the performance in the group stage seeding into different rounds of the knockout (i.e. someone who went 0-2 in the group stage would go into round1 whilst someone who went 2-2 will go into a later round). This would reduce the number of matches and I would make the knockout bo5 - if your tournament is on the line, I think there should be a "proper" series. I think with 2 streams, there should be no problems with finishing all the matches.
Another tweak (but not as important) I would also potentially look at placing the qualifiers (Shin/Showtime) into the losers round of the group matches rather than just the knockout.
In the end, I think the format delivered as the best players qualified - I think the only player who could feel hard done was Olivera, but then don't forget, he benefited from the format in his Katowice win - people tend to forget he was 2-3 in the group and could've got eliminated but for a lucky result in another match. So there's pro/cons with every format.
|
It's obviously a completely nonsense format made by someone who should never make another tournament format again, but I wouldn't say it's exactly unfair to anyone. I do think because of the way it's laid out, it can be a bit bad depending on your seeds in the brackets, and that can definitely dictate your final position a lot, which ultimately is the difference between $15k and $45k, but that can exist in just about any format.
The bigger problem is that there are too many pointless games and then when there were games that mattered, they were Bo3. I swear no one put any time into thinking why a bracket is laid out the way it is, with the number of games they have. Then there's that random 2nd of 2nd dropdown seed at the top of the knockout bracket, making it asymmetrical. Just the silliest shit imaginable.
I personally find the quasi-Swiss format leading to a smaller knockout bracket to be the most satisfying, because it quickly filters out players in tiers while giving each player at least 3 games each. I find that plain round robin groups lead to too many pointless matches for one of the opponents, which should simply never happen.
Also, the prize pool should be flatter. It's great they give $15k to the lowest player, but for a lot of these players, this prize money will end up being a large part of their salary for the following year. We don't need to keep rewarding the top 5 players with all the prize money. It does not benefit the scene any.
|
I think it was fun to watch but a bit rough for the players
|
the 2nd vs 2nd for a final 4 spot was very weird.
Tournaments nowadays have many second or more (as in this case) lives to ensure the heavy favorites reach the final stages consistently. I would prefer to stay away from it honestly, more variance to the top8 would help the scene.
|
All tournament formats have pros and cons. The biggest "con" in this particular format in my opinion is having the knockout bracket be Bo3. A bit too high variance for my taste and since they seem to have unlimited production dollars I don't see why they couldn't run the knockout bracket as Bo5/Bo7 (finals) over two days.
Beyond that I think it's reasonable enough. Or to put it another way, it's not in my view more unreasonable than other formats that have brutal group stages (GSL), bracket seeding anomalies/fairness issues (single elimination tournament brackets like GSL, IEM, etc.), or swiss/round robin formats in which the winner is often known before the last round (I don't think I've seen one of these in SCII since some of the early GSL qualifiers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/content_folder_media/N1VVK1MT6KOR1383849557438.jpg)
