Community needs to adopt 3 out of 5 for tournaments...

I'm too dense to understand these replies -_-

 

When watching VF on MLG on stream, the single biggest complaint I saw from those watching the stream with me was

"That's it?! The match was too fast!!"

Mind you, Soul Calibur had just ended, and they were the mainstays watching, since the VF match came right after. They were beginning to get interested, but before you know it, BAM, the 2/3 set was over.

Now I understand people saying that it's better to play than watch. But new people aren't going to just walk to the nearest console and start playing VF competitively by themselves. Everybody I know who plays tournaments in other games started by a)hanging out or talking directly with somebody already in the competitive scene and b)getting inspired by watching competitive oriented media, such as 'EVO moment #24', instructional vids or high-level replays on YouTube, or streams of tournaments (EVO,Big Two,NEC,WNF,Final Round,CEO,etc). Showing off high-level play and high-level matches is what gets alot (read: probably the majority) of new potential competitors to play VF or any other fighting game.

Now on the SummerJam stream, VF lasted like what, 45 minutes on stream, because it was so quick. Meanwhile, games like DOA5, Soul Calibur, and KOF lasted around 2 hours+ each. People liked VF, but comparatively people had at least two hours to talk about, watch, and get excited about, say, DOA.

Keeping these short 2/3 sets, or making it even smaller is effectively killing VF's time in the spotlight for newcomers who don't know anyone thats a VF player already. This is their chance to see what's so great about VF for themselves. Why would you want to shorten that? I don't get it.

I would think that Jaxel is effectively trying to say this by creating this topic to begin with.

 

There's also the fact that longer sets are more competitive as well. Shorter sets do less of 'forcing the players to adapt' and more of allowing players to get wins via shenanigans and randomness. As a matter of fact, the entire point of longer sets is to see who's the best at adapting and who's the better player overall. I'm pretty sure the entire point of competition is to see who's the best at the end of the day, and shorter sets are the anti-thesis of that.

Which is why most of America's tournaments run double-elim, 3/5 (especially for 3d games, games like Street Fighter and KOF run 2/3 simply because their game is too slow, and for no other reason; even marvel is shifting to 3/5)

 

People like to label players who win a tournament as the best player. "Best" players are more likely to win tournaments, because they are good; but best players does not equal tournament winner. A person that win a tournament is the player that did the best in the matches within that tournament.

National Football League (American) playoffs = one game and out playoff
Fifa World Cup = one game and out playoff
Major League Baseball = 3 out of 5 game playoff, and 4 out of 7 game playoff.

I guess whoever is organizing the event can decide whatever format they want. In my opinion, making the tournament format longer to compete against other fighting game time on stream is a bad idea.

The rationale for my decisions in organizing events:
People told me they don't like to participate in tournaments because there are a lot of wait time.

A post made a while back when I was looking for feedback to creating the VF Circuit

 

There hasn't been anybody who had explained why shorter sets/single elim is better for tournaments, besides 'i think it's more exciting...!', which quite honestly, is totally subjective and not even a concrete reason.

At base value, you pair 2 players to compete in VF. Each match they play, the have a percentage chance of winning mostly (in VF) determined by skill level. Unless one of them knows absolutely nothing about VF,neither of the players chances are zero, therefore each player has a chance to win a single match. But the longer set increases, the more it will show that the better player will always win more. Its common sense. It will also mean that longer sets in tournaments == greater likelyhood the best player will win, while shorter sets will not. Every single tournament player I know, no matter the game, always prefers longer sets, period.

And btw, sports is a bad example. For example, american football has one game playoffs not because they believe its the best playoff format, but because more games == shortening the longevity of their players. Its a full contact sport that tolls the body. If i'm not mistaken (not a big US Football fan), they had a lockout a few years ago because GMs wanted to increase the # of games in a season, but the players weren't having that

Can somebody give a real concrete reason why shorter sets are better, plz?

 

Check the link I posted?

 

I checked it, but that doesn't mean I agree with it, just because Myke said it (and I have tons of respect for Myke, btw)

 

Quotes from the posted link

The part in red is exactly the problem with shorter sets/single elim. And in the end, that what turns an entire tournament into a pointless joke.

If you're willing to run a tournament and not put in work, then all I can say is 'what are you doing running a tournament?'. I've seen people like shinBlanka and other ATL and southeast US Tournament organizers run MULTIPLE 3/5, double elim games simultaneously. And on a regular basis with multiple occasions. With proper planning, i've never seen them complain about the format.

This is totally wrong. If you win by a shenanigan or randomness that a player wasn't prepared for, that doesnt mean the winner is the better player. I just beat Denkai in a 3-0 shutout during the last VF Circuit. Does that mean I'm a better player than Denkai, one of the best VFers in the western hemisphere? That's a total laugh. And if you ask me, another reason why I think VFCircuit matches should be at least 2/3

 

Nothing wrong with disagreeing. But I'm not agreeing to it just because Myke said it.

If we look at the bracket you are talking about, I believe Denkai did have a better record than you though.

 

...and if it was 2/3 matches, instead of single match, Denkai's record vs. me would have been even better

 

what I keep asking is 'How?!'. Nobody is answering this question.

double elim==more games
more games==greater likelyhood that more skilled player will win

the math doesnt lie.

 

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ !!!!!!!!!

why are you guys repeatedly dodging my question? I'd actually like to see how your point is proven, seriously..

again, HOW is it flawed?

 

Blackstar - a tournament is designed to be fair. That is most important. Trying to make a tournament catered toward "the more skilled" players or toward the "less skilled" players is the wrong way of thinking.

If you just want to make a tournament catered toward "more skilled players" to determine who is the more skilled players...why just go for 3 out of 5? Lets go 4 out of 7, 5 out of 9, best out of 100. Or better yet: I deemed player #1 is better than player #2. So player #1 only needs to win 2 matches to advance, but player #2 needs to win 3 matches to advance (because he is the weaker player).

The more skill player will have greater likelihood of winning more tournaments (note the plural) than one with less skill. Whether it is just one game and out or two out of three. So what if the "better" player gets knock out early in a tournament? Well, there are more tournaments he/she can participate to show that he is a better overall player then!

I originally thought you were asking why a short tournament format is better. Which I gave my explanation (whether you agree or disagree). I don't think your question was dodged. It is a matter of preference.

The good players will work with the tournament format they are given and played to their best ability (unless of course the tournament is very biased as some of the examples I gave above).

 

Now again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the entire point of going to -any- tournament is to find out how you fare against other good players. Why else would someone travel across country or even continents to majors like EVO or NEC? I'm not saying it's the end all be all of straight skill ranking (too many factors, and that's what things like RanBats and stuff like that are for), but if people just came to tournaments just to play games, they could just do a massive casual session from the hotel, or in fact, just stay at home and play LIVE or PSN and save tons of money. Making a tournament 'catered toward the more skilled' as you say is another way of saying improving the tournament. Now how that is a wrong way of thinking, i dunno *shrug* Though I might have a strong opinion on the subject (shown with plenty of corroborating facts to prove my case), I've never said anyone else's opinion was wrong (except for that last point from the link you posted), and I actually wanted to understand the differing opinions

Now you're getting it. Now, of course, if we were robots in a time vacuum, the idea would be that the more matches you play, the more the results will reflect relative skill levels of the players. Now since we are not robots, and have to deal with things like other tournaments, fatigue, real life stuff, time, boredom, etc, the idea of a 3/5 vs. a 2/3 or single match is that you strike a balance between a longer set and moving a tournament foreword.

tbh, i don't understand what this has to do with anything

how does this disprove anything about double elim/longer sets being a better format? How does this prove that single elim/shorter sets are a better format? (read: it doesnt for either)

That's what the original question was and still is, that hasn't changed at all. But yeah, you're right, my bad. you didn't dodge my question, and you answered me (with that link from Myke, i guess). so you got me there. It's definitely more than a matter of preference though.

that goes with the territory. any player that enters a tournament will accept the rules displayed, including me.

 

All the streamed SummerJam games on Sunday were top 8, with the possible exception of DOA. VF was the only one that finished in under an hour



Now, on another note, to sum up my essay of posts :
3/5 sets:
-indisputably favors better placement for more skilled players (which is the point of having a tournament to begin with) in a timely manner
-favors player adaptation more than smaller sets
-removes the random/shenanigan factor
-all of these points make tournaments better

-also allows more stream time for viewers and thus one of our best chances for getting potential VF newcomers we cant speak to ourselves


2/3, single match, or single elim:
-destroys or entirely removes the benefits listed above