August League Tournament Results and Format Discussion

0

I agree that this will slightly reduce the amount of games, and therefore time, but in challonge you cannot adjust the amount of games played per round midway through a Swiss style.

This leads to a need to have 2, separate brackets (the qualifier and playoff matches). The likelihood of having situations where tie breakers won’t work is very high….

I hosted a 2v2 round robin in the past, the inability to break ties was awful, led to 2 extra days of holding the event and everyone was miserable.

Is there a way we can deal with so little rounds not leading to ties?

0

Managing by hand the bracket is doable i think since it's only 8 players ( it's a little more of work for the TD, i know, but if rules are clearly stated before the tourney it's not very hard).
Ties are indeed more probable, since there are only 2 BO3 where you can use the difference between wins and losses as a tie breaker .. It's not a problem for the pairings of the second BO3 (we can use ladder rating to rank people with similar score and similar W-L ratio), but it can be a problem for the final results.

There are probably some ways to make this work, the only think really is to find an acceptable way to break ties ... but it's surely a bit more complicated than what we have now I agree.

1

@morax said in August League Tournament Results and Format Discussion:

in challonge you cannot adjust the amount of games played per round midway through a Swiss style.

For matches that are meant to be BO1 instead of BO3, can't you just "double report" them to challonge? As in: report 2 wins instead of 1 win.

That would make a BO1 match equally significant to winning a BO3 2-0.

Or, if it makes a difference, you could report it as win-loss-win, so it would be like winning a BO3 2-1.

0

Reporting 2-1 would be best to keep the tiebreaker automated and not giving undue influence to the BO1s I think.

0

@ftxcommando said in August League Tournament Results and Format Discussion:

Reporting 2-1 would be best to keep the tiebreaker automated and not giving undue influence to the BO1s I think.

Yeah, still kind of a cheat, though, since there was no actual games played. I am convinced Aurico is right in that we would have to use a manual system for this, and it kind of sucks since that won't be as well tracked for reference in Challonge's history.

Still feeling most people like the BO1 with more rounds that I spoke to. I will have to do wider conversations rather rely on folks to post replies here it seems.

0

Assuming they are uses as substitutes, a 1-0 and a 2-1 are identical in how they impact tiebreakers and succeeding matchups. I don’t understand why you think manual systems are needed at all.

Swiss tournaments are risky because of one reason: variability in game length. While lowering game quantity per series addresses it in one fashion, the bigger problem is that people can pick whatever map they want and TDs aren’t going to really tell them that they can’t play Ditch while everyone has been waiting for 30 minutes for their round to finish.

This extends to making every round BO1 but then adding more rounds, you aren’t really helping solve the problem as much as you think you are because it still carries more risks of people picking a huge macro map that everyone now needs to finish.

I would FIRST say that the issue to solve is to create consistency between rounds by maybe making round 1 a list of 5 of the smaller/quicker maps from the pool. Then round 2 is the middle 5. Then round 3 is the big 5. Then you cycle back.

Less freedom for players but likely leads to less downtime and if that is still not enough, begin decreasing BO3s. In theory 4 BO3s is totally possible to do in 5.5 hours as that is what happens in single elimination tournaments, it’s the downtime that is killing it.

Or if you want more consistency and have people play one another on various map sizes, have game 1 in a series on a small map, game 2 medium, game 3 big. Or some variation of it.

0

FREEDOM TO THE PLAYERS !!!

Yea again, that's just my opinion, go ask the others, but i'd rather wait a bit and have more freedom than being forced to play a certain type a map ... "you're against ZLO, oh darn, too bad for you it's time to only play 20x20 maps .. !"

Now splitting the problem in half is fine to me. First BO1s can be fixed map (round 1 : 10x10, round 2: 5x5 round 3: 20x20 for instance), and then we have the BO3 where we are more free. With 2 BO3, there is just one moment where we might wait for players to finish their Ditch game ... Some time is saved, w can use challonge, TD is happy, Ricorico is happy, everybody is happy.

0

Waiting for players to veto makes the FAFLive experience significantly worse. Players are third-class citizens fighting in the pit for my enjoyment, they don't deserve any free will.

0

Shouldn’t impact the casting experience since there are several games that could be getting watched during deadtime anyway. Kind of why you need 2 casters as one is primarily handling talking while another can also deal with secondary duties like finding the next best games to cover if deadtime shows up and interacting with the audience.

0

I've talked with Rowey about using MapBan and it seems very doable. If the casters were casting live, they would be fed the UI + the whole banning process.