@haroldonvu: said:
@ajamafalous: That's 10 matches in single round, 20 in double round-robin if you ditch the bo3 which only works with elimination style tournament, that's roughly the same amount of matches as a bo3 double elimination format. Single round-robin to seed is a good idea, the problem then becomes then number of matches unless it's just to qualify two teams for the final bo3 match. Anyway, like I said any format Blackmoore and Cheap pick is fine by me, all will pros and cons and really I'm just happy to be a part of the whole thing.
The math can't really be compared that easily, though. In a Bo3DE, you've got 8 matchups, each scheduled for 2 or 3 games (i.e. a ~3 hour commitment, 16-24 games total, or 17-26 if we do a Bo5 for the finals). Additionally, the more successful teams play more, which leads to scheduling not being as much of an issue, because the teams that are winning are more likely to want to continue playing. I won't consider a single round robin by itself just because Dota is as much about reacting and adapting in the picking phase than it is about performing in-game. That leaves us with a round robin with 10 matchups, where each of the matchups consists of at least 2 games (because, again, it's ridiculous to only have each team play each other team once without any chance to adapt to their drafts based on a previous game). Presumably these would be scheduled back to back, so it would be something like a 2-3 hour time commitment with 20 games total. The problem you run into is that each team plays 8 games regardless of record, so a team that goes 0-4/1-3 in their first two matchups has little incentive to continue scheduling games if it doesn't look like they have a chance to win overall. This is, if I remember correctly, exactly what happened in the last community tournament; one team was wildly more successful than the rest and stomped through the first few matchups, which led the rest of the teams to stop caring about scheduling and the tournament fell apart. An elimination bracket is much better because, not only does every game mean something to the viewers, but the matchups are between successful teams and will always decide bracket advancement, so both teams always have an incentive to continue scheduling games.
If we add a Bo1 single round robin for seeding into the Bo3DE bracket, we'd have 26-34 games. It's the fairest way to go without running into the issues of the last tournament, but it's also the most time-consuming. I almost wouldn't be opposed to ignoring the round robin for the sake of scheduling and time and just seeding based on something like an inverted seeding of average MM wins, tournament signup order, or even just letting RNG handle it, but these obviously all have very valid criticisms, with RNG being the fairest of the three.
@ajamafalous said:
Also, if it were up to me, instead of eliminating the 5th place team, I think it's more fair to give the 1st place team from the round-robin the 1st Round bye.
Well, but that would mean that team would go straight to the finals. That's maybe too much of a bonus.
Regarding the schedule problems, the BO1 style can negate some of that. Especially if we do it on weekend, then we can have 3 or 4 teams at the same time and go through a bunch of games in 2 or 3 hours.
That's actually not what it means; take a look at the bracket linked by Harold earlier. Exclude Game 9. Game 8 is the Grand Finals; Game 6 is the Winner's Bracket Finals.
The problem with multiple games at the same time is that we wouldn't be able to have casters and tourney admins in all the games.
Overall, I'm sure you guys can see this is a lot to deal with, and it's part of the reason you guys haven't heard anything from us yet. This is our first tournament, so we're just trying to get it done as quickly and painlessly as possible. I think I speak for everyone involved when I say that we hope it'll become a regular thing, but in order to do that we've gotta make it through the first one first.
Log in to comment