Myrgard

Okay after some thought, I want to scrap the double elimination round system, and replace it with a much more exciting division system. Here is how it will work:

After the conclusion of the QR on June 30, the QR rankings will be broken up into weighted divisions of 5 players each. So rankings #1 - #5 will be the top division, #6 - #10 the 2nd highest division, and so forth.

It is like tennis, you will play a SET of games (each set is the same as the usual short match in the QR, first to 3 game wins, win by 2). And then you will play multiple sets to complete your match. Matches are won by first to 3 set wins, win by 2. You play 1 match against each player in your division.

The tournament will continue until all of the matches are completed against the other 4 players in each division. I estimate it will take 10 weeks to complete, however I will monitor it as we go. To keep everyone on track, the 2 pm Saturday fallbacks are still in effect every single week, you can miss up to 3 fallbacks, but not 2 in a row. Of course if you are keeping up with your matches, then you can miss all the fallbacks you want and I won't penalize you. You should also still notify myself and everyone in your division with 2 days notice (i.e. by Thursday that week) if you will miss that fallback, just as common courtesy. Nobody needs to be forfeited for falling behind on their matches, I would rather have some matches than no matches at all. However, the reason for that rule is because that is the point at which I will start decaying an inactive player's rank, and possibly even bump a player down a division to allow another more active player to play at a higher division. I will just end the tournament if needed without all the series complete if a few stragglers just have not been active enough with their matches.

It is recommended that you play 2 sets every single week to stay on track with the tournament schedule in completing your matches. That should take you anywhere from 0.5-1.5 hours to complete, which I think is the right amount of time for people to get a solid chunk of fun games, it is still much shorter than a standard MWC match. You can of course still schedule and play matches on your own at any time throughout the week. You are expected to schedule on your own with the other players in your division. You are basically being asked to devote 1 hour on average per week for this tournament, which I don't think is asking for too much.

The winner of the tournament is of course the top ranked person of the top division after all of the matches have been played or the tournament has been called.

Before you rage about the impossibility of moving up a division, you will still be able to do that, but with conditions. First, you have to hold the top rank within your division. Second, as the top rank in your division, you have to beat the lowest ranked person in the division above you, in a single longer match, first to 5 wins, win by 2. You only get 1 shot at moving up a division. If you lose that match, you are stuck in your current division.

The rankings within divisions will be getting constantly updated after each match is completed, so the leader and last-place spots in each division may be changing. You will have to hold onto your division-leader spot long enough to be able to secure the match against the division above you. This also means if you are the lowest ranked person in your division, you are going to have to play an additional match, and (possibly more than one if the leader changes in the division below you) to fight to keep your spot. You will have 2 weeks to play this divisional match, I will monitor who is not making honest efforts in scheduling or playing at fallbacks for this.

If the lower division leader beats the higher division's last placed, then they swap places. The lower division leader gets bumped up to the higher division, and the last place player in the higher division gets bumped down into the lower division. If this ever happens, both of those players have to start their series all over again with the new set of players in their new division. This should be taken care of in the first couple weeks so there isn't much wasted time.

Side rule about map picks: you cannot repeat picks through your entire match series, unless your opponent agrees. This is to prevent people from just specializing in 3 maps for every single set they play. Look at the tourney website if you forget which maps have been played, and want to hold your opponent accountable to this rule. However, the PG dueling plugin does count as a separate map, but should be played in a different match as its corresponding regular map unless your opponent agrees. Again, any game options are always okay as long as your opponent agrees.

Okay so the reasoning for this system:
-We get a whole shitload of very high quality, evenly matched matches
-If you play like shit 1 day, or even a couple days, you aren't out of the tournament like you would be under a DE system, and this happens to everyone.
-There is more tournament content for you to participate in. When you log-in at the fallback, there is a good chunk of matches for you, instead of just playing 1 measly 20-30 minute match and being done.
-No one will be eliminated in the first 2-3 weeks and then be unable to play. Everyone plays from start to finish.
-We get to take full advantage of the activity during the entire MWC season.
-We get to really see who is consistently better over a longer time frame.
-We don't have to go through the motions of wasting time on total curb-stomp matches. Yet upsets are still possible.
-There can't be a single person holding up the entire fucking tournament (like there could be in a DE format), everyone can play around any stragglers, and the stragglers can just be pushed down and out of the way.
-It is much more flexible for scheduling than a DE format
-if you are constantly behind in a particular match, struggling to keep up under the pressure, even if you eventually lose that match, the score is wiped clean on the next match to alleviate some of the pressure.

I will also be increasing the minimum number of matches to be played during the QR up to 5 now, to really make sure people will be active enough for this, and also to really make sure I got solid rankings to make these divisions off of. Please plan accordingly.

So it's more like a tennis match... with games/sets. Interesting... I like it. Just hope there is enough participation/interest to see it through to the end...

yes exactly, i meant to include that in the description even - Like tennis.

adrenaline wrote:So it's more like a tennis match... with games/sets. Interesting... I like it. Just hope there is enough participation/interest to see it through to the end...

I belive this is exactly the right way to go to acctually keep folks interested threw the end because players who might normally not do to good don't get shipped out of the tourney at once after a few games , BUT they get the oppourtunity to redem a round they did bad.

Cool, I like it aswell.

Sweet, should produce more interesting matches overall I think. Normally the first round or two of properly-seeded DE is just blowouts and no fun for anyone; this sounds like each player should have a chance to move up or down at least within their division, and some pride can come from being first in your division as well

They do something similar in the Starcraft 2 ladder and it works well.

I think you should re-word your first post to avoid confusion:

set = first to 3 game wins (win by 2)
match = first to 3 set wins (win by 2)

Also... I think the *win by 2* clause is unnecessary for the sets... but should be implemented only for the match... picture the match I had with Sam... now here's what *could* happen:

set 1 = 8-6 adren
set 2 = 8-6 sam
set 3 = 8-6 adren
set 4 = 8-6 sam
set 5 = 8-6 adren
set 6 = 8-6 adren

so ya... for the sake of brevity, let's say I win this match in 6 sets, but each set is back and forth like our previous match... hey shit... we're up to 84 games played LOL. Extreme example perhaps... but see the problem here?

I would rather keep it in and just be able to call it if it gets extreme. keep in mind I find that so incredibly unlikely that it will even be ever used, even as just a 4-2 series. the vast majority will be 3-0 series, with a handful of 3-1's, that is what I am thinking. its possible to see a 4-2, but I think it is very unlikely. 4-2 is still practical though, and anything higher than that is like astronomically unlikely. let's just see what happens, i can always call it later if needed and use game scores to tiebreak or something.

I still see the potential for seemingly endless matches... 14 games in a row was hard enough... you start losing interest at that point...

As your system stands, the minimum number of games would be 9 (given every set was 3-0... unlikely)
Even if every set was 3-1... there is 12 games.
4-2... 18 games.
5-3... 24 games.

If the sets were back and forth... this number grows pretty quickly.

A good way to limit this would be to implement something like this:

set = first to 3 games, win by 2
match = best of 5 sets

The matches still have the potential to be long... but not AS long. And then there would be no need for TO intervention, tie-breaks, etc.

agree with adren, winning by two to get a set point should be plenty. tennis matches go on for hours for this reason and the set win by two is because serving is such a HUGE advantage that they require a break to prove dominance. there's no such thing here.

plus by the end people will be replaying maps due to huge # of games potentially.

I still want to see what happens with it. If it goes long and you lose interest then stop playing and I will handle it. But if 2 players want to keep going at it, I don't want to prevent them from being able to do so. Again, if there are any problems with it I will modify the rules. But until I see it causing problems I am going to leave it in. I don't like anything being close, it should be clear cut. And this is going to go on for 3 months so that is plenty of time.

You are forgetting that having a match score go to 4-2 and beyond in games is going to happen a whole lot more frequently than having a series score go to 4-2 and beyond in matches.

This basically comes down to would I rather see a 3-2 series score, or a 4-2 series score, because the chance of it going beyond that is so incredibly slim, that I have to see it first before I believe it. I would rather see a 4-2 series score.

people can keep going if they want after at least 9 wins versus someone. otherwise you'll probably see some forfeits.

I will consider changing the rule if I see a 3-3 series or beyond happen. When that happens, come talk to me about changing the rule. Until it does, no point in talking about it since it won't matter. we are otherwise talking about the difference of playing 1 extra match or not.

While I like the way this tourney format will definitively rank the 1v1ers... I'm not a fan of the way the winner is picked! It's just weird not seeing a "grand finals" in a tourney... not as exciting. What WOULD be cool would be using this format to clearly define seeding, then using that seeding in a round-robin playoffs type thing... but that's a lot of time commitment to ask of people... I suppose it would also defeat the initial purpose of this format lol. But still... would be cool to see a Grand Finale of some sort.

Yeah wait and see I guess. That said, I think it actually makes more sense to leave the "sets" as QR-style and just make matches best of 5 or something; i.e. remove the "win by two" on matches, not on sets.

Regarding a "grand finale", you could always just take the top 2/4 in the top division or something and do a seeded semis/finals "for the fans"

yea I could do something like that...but what if someone 3-0d or 3-1'd someone in the match series within their division, and then lost the 1 "grand finale" match there. I like having clear winners. just think of the whole series as one big epic match.

I will think about the grand finale thing, but meh.

I guess I would be more open to the grand finale thing if something carried over from the divisional rounds. Like how the winners of the top bracket in mwc have sudden death advantage. Except something more significant than that.

Also, if I do a grand finale, do now people want semi finals, or even more? an entire single elimination round afterward? I would have to slim down the divisional round in some way if I were to accommodate that.

What about sticking with the initial DE Round Robin format... but do a game/set/match format for each pairing... So each match itself would have to be a pretty definitive victory? And for sure... continue on with the QR round to ensure activity and commitment among the competitors.

i am not following. are you suggesting super long matches where the sets are all played back to back? that would defeat the purpose of seeing who is more consistent playing at a variety of different times, not to mention the match being way too long then.

I think a big advantage of the division system is more balanced matches. Wouldn't want to lose that just for the purpose of having a "finals", which can be accomplished in other ways.

wouldn't have to be back to back.... a match could be played over the course of a week or something... I dunno, was just an idea.

a simple fix for making short sets would be Max 7 games. So if the score is tied 3-3 make the 7th game the last one. I think its a decent idea if we are doing sets

if the score gets tied at 3-3, both players should just stop their match, and come talk to me. whatever we end up doing, I want them to both agree to it beforehand while it is still tied, preferably doing what they want so long as they agree to do it. that way there can be no disputes later, I want UNDISPUTED victories. i think it is also situation dependent. it depends a lot on where they are with their matches, and where in the tournament schedule it is, etc. If everyone is ahead on their matches and it is still early on the tournament, they are probably going to want to just play it out my way so they can get more good matches in.

so far none of our rematches have yielded a different winner though so this is incredibly unlikely to even occur.

for example, ghengis if this were the divisonal round, you would only have to play paris in one more set assuming you beat him again, which seems pretty likely. then you would be done playing paris and would only have 3 other people to do the same thing against. you have basically 3 months to do that. see how much time that is in the grand scheme of things?

Everyone please note that I may end up increasing the division sizes from 5 to 6. I reserve the right to change it later on if needed, whatever is in the best interest of the tournament. This only benefits people, so I don't expect any bitching really. The only potential down side is that there will be a bit more sets to be played during the divisional rounds, if that happens to be something that someone does not want.