|
Well since there's been huge uproar recently about bo1 (especially after tsm got eliminated at the last lan) i was wondering what do you guys think about bo1?
Personally, i don't like them at major/big tournaments. It kinda rings the element of randomness into the game which i'm not really fond of and it actually gives less of a chance to lesser/weaker teams to gain experience and exposure on international scene. Remember when wolf/bravado and even vox (at that time) made their debut at international tournaments? Only vox managed to appear again, the rest of them went kinda into obscurity (on international level, not domestic).
On the other hand, you also make case why are bo1 good. You can always prepare for your opponent (if you're a lesser team) and surprise him. No one is easy walkover anymore and top teams would need to put more preparation into smaller teams thus possibly making games against other top teams more exciting since they haven't managed to study them that carefully. It kinda adds "positive" randomness into the game (if you like to think of it that way).
What do you guys think?
Poll: BO1's yaay or naaayNaaay (15) 75% Yaaay (5) 25% 20 total votes Your vote: BO1's yaay or naaay (Vote): Yaaay (Vote): Naaay
|
Choosing Bo1 over Bo3 is almost always a logistical decision. No tournament organizer sits down and says: "Yea lets go with Bo1 because it's better than Bo3." It comes down to the format you choose (group play/brackets), the time available, the venue available (do you have multiple playing areas? can you play 2 Bo3s simultaneously?), and so on.
|
Bo3 is a sweet spot between schedule efficiency and reduce the randomness, while keeping the finals bo5. Considering there is relatively shorter down times in LAN environment, I see no reason to go all bo1.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
Honestly, what tourney organizers should do is running Bo3 all the way but have 2 streams up for the group stages so that the excuse of 12 hours of CS a day can be ignored as you're doubling your content and actual tournament progress in the same time frame. Bo5 finals is best when its on a separate day as we say c9 vs fnatic being a fantastic Bo5.
|
As I mentioned in another thread I still think BO1 can have one advantage, which is teams preparing specific strats against other teams, like we saw with the "underdogs" at the ESL finals. BO3 all the time can give some rather generic games becuase teams can only prepare that many different set plays and strats for each team for many maps.
However, IF they choose BO1 they need to make sure teams do not go out after 2 maps. I think what most people was really dissappointed about was that their favorite team, TSM, got knocked out after 2 quick maps.
So, in the end it is still a logistics question, and I completely agree with axkcd. Why not have more games at the same time, and then pick a few games to be the featured. I mean, at the big events they have like 10 analysts/casters so they could have commentators for 2 or more streams.
This is also what is done a any other sports event at the bigginning of a turnament.
|
why it is a problem for CS when every round have finite amount of time.
I don't see why you can't plan ahead with that knowledge. It's not like dota where you can have each game goes for 90 minutes.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 06 2015 21:20 haduken wrote: why it is a problem for CS when every round have finite amount of time.
I don't see why you can't plan ahead with that knowledge. It's not like dota where you can have each game goes for 90 minutes.
Overtime becomes an issue
|
In group stages I like what Sonic did for SSL8. First two games Bo1, winner, loser, decider Bo3.
|
On July 06 2015 20:24 Sugarfluff wrote: Choosing Bo1 over Bo3 is almost always a logistical decision. No tournament organizer sits down and says: "Yea lets go with Bo1 because it's better than Bo3." It comes down to the format you choose (group play/brackets), the time available, the venue available (do you have multiple playing areas? can you play 2 Bo3s simultaneously?), and so on. It makes sense, but it seems that organizers have learnt from their previous mistakes and delays are not 1+h,besides from what i've seen, recently there's a trend that tournies are spanning across 3 days so making bo3 makes more sense.
|
I don't like BO1 except for cases when it is used in a group stage with round-robin format. And even then groups should be 5+ teams large for it to work well.
At the same time I strongly dislike double elimination groups format (aka GSL groups). Results of such groups depend way too heavily on initial pairings.
So my ideal format for group stage is large round-robin groups with BO1 games, or BO2 if time permits it.
I've theorized about using this format for majors in the past. Their current format of BO1 in 4 double elimination groups is really bad. It is very random due to both BO1 and bracket luck (i.e. initial pairings being a huge factor). Two most popular options for improvement are either using BO3 in those double elimination groups, or using two 8 team round-robin groups with BO1. Four double elimination groups with BO3 would require 10-15 maps each, so 40-60 in total. Two 8 team round-robin groups with BO1 would require 28 maps each, 56 in total. Organizers need to account for max number of maps while creating the schedule (if they want it to mean anything), so both options are very similar when it comes to the required time.
Then we can move to other factors and using two 8 team round-robin groups has several advantages, for both teams and viewers. For teams, each of them is guaranteed at least 7 games/maps in this format. For viewers, we get to see much more different match-ups with teams playing different opponent each time. Absence of the bracket luck factor is a good thing for all involved parties. Additionally, two 8 team groups allow for a really convenient seeding into the play-off bracket: first place from group A plays 4th place from group B, second place from group A plays 3rd place from group B, and vice versa.
As for the time factor, last few majors were 4 days long. If they use first 2 days for the group stage and stream 2 games at a time, then they should be able to fit it. Then the 3rd day will contain quarter-finals and 4th day will contain semi-finals and grand final.
|
I don't really like BO1, it's quite bad and too random. For online it's okay tho
|
I really really hate Bo1s. If time permits, they should never be played. Bo3s are ideal in my opinion, and this should be the format for round-robins if time permits. But they do take time and if it is not possible to fit them into the schedule, the best alternative for round-robin is to play Bo2s (2-0 = 3pts for winner, 1-1 = 1pt each). The only downside is that betters will have to contend with draws, but fuck the betters.
|
|
|
|