Hey guys.
I was reading through the long Tim vs happyhappy admin decision thread last night, and i saw taff's and others opinions on different settings, like BO5 or play all 5 games with both having their ups and downs.
I remember that long time ago I wanted to host an arabia tournament, and my idea of settings was this:
Play a BO# format, but have the points awarded in a different manner, like this - only the winer gets points, and the points he gets is the difference in games won/lost.
As an example, in a BO5, at 3-2 the winner would get 1 point, 3-1 he would get 2 points and 3-0 he would get all 3 points. The less games you give away, the more points you get.
This would achieve 2 things that would be a problem in a standard BO# or play-all-games format:
1.The players will not give away games on purpose as that would automatically mean losing points (without the need for an admin punishment)
2.The losing player would still want to give his best, in order to have the winner score as less points as possible, to keep the points gap smaller.
However this #2 could still become a problem later on, when there would be players with no chances of qualifying who will probably not give their best, but i believe it's still better than the other 2 formats.
This second problem can be solved this way:
award the winner the same number of points nomatter the result, but award the loser 0 points in any case, like all the competitive sports do.
That would ensure that no cheating of this kind will occur. There will be no need for acusations in cases like Tim vs HappyHappy , or TheViper vs Zuppi as the loser won't benefit from his opponent not playing his 100%.
In the same time it won't matter if (example) MbL played his best vs slam and got 2-3, while there were sill hopes for him to qualify, and went outpost rush to a 0-3 vs tim when he was out of the tourney anyway.
This won't solve problem 1, as now there would be many cases when players won't give their best when they know they get the same amount of points regardless if they win to 0, 1 or 2 (just like the standard BO#) but that could in fact mean more fun, and even better games as a 5% Viper vs a 100% 8th wonder :twisted: would always be more of a close and fun to watch game than TheViper giving his best in the same situation.
I would really like to see both settings being given a chance and being tested in some upcoming events.
What do you guys think? Do you see problems occuring that i didn't spot?
I was reading through the long Tim vs happyhappy admin decision thread last night, and i saw taff's and others opinions on different settings, like BO5 or play all 5 games with both having their ups and downs.
I remember that long time ago I wanted to host an arabia tournament, and my idea of settings was this:
Play a BO# format, but have the points awarded in a different manner, like this - only the winer gets points, and the points he gets is the difference in games won/lost.
As an example, in a BO5, at 3-2 the winner would get 1 point, 3-1 he would get 2 points and 3-0 he would get all 3 points. The less games you give away, the more points you get.
This would achieve 2 things that would be a problem in a standard BO# or play-all-games format:
1.The players will not give away games on purpose as that would automatically mean losing points (without the need for an admin punishment)
2.The losing player would still want to give his best, in order to have the winner score as less points as possible, to keep the points gap smaller.
However this #2 could still become a problem later on, when there would be players with no chances of qualifying who will probably not give their best, but i believe it's still better than the other 2 formats.
This second problem can be solved this way:
award the winner the same number of points nomatter the result, but award the loser 0 points in any case, like all the competitive sports do.
That would ensure that no cheating of this kind will occur. There will be no need for acusations in cases like Tim vs HappyHappy , or TheViper vs Zuppi as the loser won't benefit from his opponent not playing his 100%.
In the same time it won't matter if (example) MbL played his best vs slam and got 2-3, while there were sill hopes for him to qualify, and went outpost rush to a 0-3 vs tim when he was out of the tourney anyway.
This won't solve problem 1, as now there would be many cases when players won't give their best when they know they get the same amount of points regardless if they win to 0, 1 or 2 (just like the standard BO#) but that could in fact mean more fun, and even better games as a 5% Viper vs a 100% 8th wonder :twisted: would always be more of a close and fun to watch game than TheViper giving his best in the same situation.
I would really like to see both settings being given a chance and being tested in some upcoming events.
What do you guys think? Do you see problems occuring that i didn't spot?