Another double elimination tournament?!?!?
GORGEous
Join Date: 2012-02-19 Member: 146762Members, NS2 Map Tester
Join Date: 2012-02-19 Member: 146762Members, NS2 Map Tester
Why?
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=121549" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=121549</a>
An overwhelming majority of players want RR instead of DE. DE doesn't work well for NS2. So why are all the sponsored tournaments setup as coin-flip-extravaganzas?
Let me preempt that I do enjoy playing in tournaments and appreciate these tournaments being hosted. I just think it's well accepted that RR tournaments are more fair and more fun. And because they're more fun and fair, they're more competitive.
<a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=121549" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=121549</a>
An overwhelming majority of players want RR instead of DE. DE doesn't work well for NS2. So why are all the sponsored tournaments setup as coin-flip-extravaganzas?
Let me preempt that I do enjoy playing in tournaments and appreciate these tournaments being hosted. I just think it's well accepted that RR tournaments are more fair and more fun. And because they're more fun and fair, they're more competitive.
Comments
Very sad though, that we can't even try a RR tourney. RR is much more fun in my eyes, both spec and player perspective. I'd like to see/play every team. Not just half the teams. Feels like getting ripped off :(
But whatevs. I'm sure this won't be the last tourney.
EDIT; So I did the mock up to see what it would take.... 8 simultaneous matches during 15 rounds.... with two games during each match... 240 games.....?!?!?!?! I think I would die... Now I am not opposed to 8 team RR, I think the Blind Cup was a good example of that, but when we put on these big events we have lots of teams signing up...
Yeah I understand. I don't mean to sound hostile/upset about it (I'm not). Just something that bothers me a little.
EDIT; So I did the mock up to see what it would take.... 8 simultaneous matches during 15 rounds.... with two games during each match... 240 games.....?!?!?!?! I think I would die... Now I am not opposed to 8 team RR, I think the Blind Cup was a good example of that, but when we put on these big events we have lots of teams signing up...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
single seeded is good too, but teams have to be ranked? & $$$$ if you win.
ex. project blackout touny qualifier
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/Dl1X3.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
28 teams were registered i think.
EDIT; So I did the mock up to see what it would take.... 8 simultaneous matches during 15 rounds.... with two games during each match... 240 games.....?!?!?!?! I think I would die... Now I am not opposed to 8 team RR, I think the Blind Cup was a good example of that, but when we put on these big events we have lots of teams signing up...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't take longer if you split it into two groups.
IE guru tournament has 12 teams -> two groups of 6. The new tournament has 16 teams -> two groups of eight (7 rounds + finals of top 2 from each group). Or you can do 15 teams (3 groups of 5 -> top 1-2 from each group then hold a finals).
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/LDLGb.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/LDLGb.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like this. Its similar to the World Cup format and guarantees each team plays against at least three other teams.
Thank you blind! This really needs to happen. ;)
Theres no backing now!
After the $2,000,000 NS2:C night cup to rival LoLs grand final this Saturday.
<img src="http://i.imgur.com/LDLGb.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to see 4 groups, play round robin, then straight elimination for the remaining 8 teams.
It intensifies the action, and keeps the overall game time within a limit, so it can be completed sooner.
Your suggestion has 3 group rounds, followed by 3 group rounds, followed by the finals.
My suggestion (which would be identical to the Euro's) Would have 3 group games, then 3 elimination rounds (getting smaller so less to miss from a caster perspective) including the final.
That is less matches, and less logistics once the initial groups are out of the way.
Any tournament with 16 players needs seeding to ensure the big teams don't knock each other out early, and maintains the quality of the tournament, even double elimination. As the last double elim showed, Duplex met Archea fairly early, were knocked out, then proceeded to make their way to the final against Arc. Seeding would have set that so Duplex and Arc would be semi-final or final game. Depending on whether Duplex were ranked 2nd or 3rd at that time.
With big team sizes, Double elimination is not a very efficient format to go with, that's why big tournaments are straight elims, or groups then elims.
It intensifies the action, and keeps the overall game time within a limit, so it can be completed sooner.
Your suggestion has 3 group rounds, followed by 3 group rounds, followed by the finals.
My suggestion (which would be identical to the Euro's) Would have 3 group games, then 3 elimination rounds (getting smaller so less to miss from a caster perspective) including the final.
That is less matches, and less logistics once the initial groups are out of the way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason for the second group stage is that we get less coin tosses. With elimination you potentially need one coin toss for each match, while with group stages you only need it for the tie breakers (and only if the teams have the exact same amount of points).
As you point out the number of rounds are pretty much the same. And if the logistics are there to support the first group stage I don't see why there would be a problem with the second stage.
A 2nd group doesn't build the same drama as a straight elimination, as every, players and spectators, know that a loss isn't the end of the tournament for that team. You'd be surprised how much spice is added to a game, for both players and spectators, when there is a knowledge that it is game over for the losers.
While there is only 1 round less in my suggestion, there is also a focused intensity. If like previously there are 2 main casting groups, you are missing a game every round in the second group, with the elimination you can either break the first elimination into 2 games (4/2), so both get viewed, or you can just play all together, watch half the games, but be able to cover both semi-finals and the final. This is better from a viewer perspective, getting the choice to watch the teams they want, but also creating tension and atmosphere.
This is why the major football tournaments do it, heck even those Americans with their mis-named game of Hand-Egg still follow that rule, they have a league season, followed by eliminations. They call them play-offs. For the spectators, and at the end of the day, a successful comp game needs spectators, my suggestion provides more excitement and interest. So what if it requires an extra coin toss or two....
Except, there also seem so be: 'These double elimination tournaments are not good enough.'
So to be clear, should UWE stop approaching sponsors? Should we cancel these tournaments? Because as these announcements roll on, 90% of the posts in this competitive forum seem to be along the lines of the above. If that's the case, then it would appear to be in the best interest of UWE and all of you if we cancel all these events. There's no point having them if none of you want them :).
Except, there also seem so be: 'These double elimination tournaments are not good enough.'
So to be clear, should UWE stop approaching sponsors? Should we cancel these tournaments? Because as these announcements roll on, 90% of the posts in this competitive forum seem to be along the lines of the above. If that's the case, then it would appear to be in the best interest of UWE and all of you if we cancel all these events. There's no point having them if none of you want them :).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We want them, but on our terms. After all, we're the ones playing. Although it pains me greatly to side with such a pubnub, I have to agree with nadyli.
(<3)
Round robin is superior.
Coin flips are bad, and should be avioded as much as possible.
Why do you keep coming back with "do you want UWE to stop doing *this*?"
No, we don't. We're just giving feedback on what we would like better.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?
Especially when on some maps the balance is extremely broken, coinflip could easily decide out come of the match with otherwise even teams.
Except, there also seem so be: 'These double elimination tournaments are not good enough.'
So to be clear, should UWE stop approaching sponsors? Should we cancel these tournaments? Because as these announcements roll on, 90% of the posts in this competitive forum seem to be along the lines of the above. If that's the case, then it would appear to be in the best interest of UWE and all of you if we cancel all these events. There's no point having them if none of you want them :).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The post above would suggest that there can only be sponsors for single or double elimination tournaments. Why would that be the case? The post above would also suggest that players arguing for something different than single or double elimination are somehow bad for someone or something tournament related. How and why would that be the case?
And no, silly, you should not overreact and stop going for sponsors or start cancelling events. There is no point in not doing useful things just because people are ever trying to improve on them.
Personally, I would like to see - especially with the number of teams growing - tournaments with early games in round robin groups of 4-6 teams and then putting the best teams from those round robin pools into an exciting end cup with semi-finals and finals, maybe even quarter finals. Then again, I will of course play - at least for now - in single and double elimination tournaments. It is after all just a preference based on experience and conversations, not an ideology.
Aww I'm sorry to hear that nadyli. Tell me, was it before or after you chose to abuse me on Steam chat that you lost this respect? Did telling me I was doing a ###### job not get the response you wanted? Was it just not enough to put me down in private, you have to come into a public forum and swear at me here as well?
My question (which is honest) stands. If everyone is unhappy with DE tournaments, that is understandable and they don't have to be held. All these other formats are fairer, probably more enjoyable for all of you, and have all sorts of other benefits as you've all pointed out.
Lets take a chill pill guys and keep it civil.
My question (which is honest) stands. If everyone is unhappy with DE tournaments, that is understandable and they don't have to be held. All these other formats are fairer, probably more enjoyable for all of you, and have all sorts of other benefits as you've all pointed out.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At WHAT point, did this thread (before you posted) EVER say that we were really unhappy and didn't want them to be held?
You have blown this WAY out of proportion.
This discussion was just POSITIVE feedback.
What the hell man?