[KotD3] General Feedback

[RobChang]

thus it ocmpletely kills hype as you know that the first loss doesn't count. OK great capoch defeated Mbl, but for what, in the end Mbl will still come up in a better position.

In RBW2 this was huge because it was a kill or die match, everyone was at 100% and capoch won.

lozja defeated theviper in Moa3, but it wasn't important and nobody remembers because viper won the tournament anyway. Same with finland and brazil in SYNC3

When it is in the finals they meet again I think nobody will complain but will be hyped to see that again. And when then MbL in a longer series and with the experience of the first loss wins the final, then its totally fine for both and Capoch and MbL will be kept in memories as legendary. If you just want upsets in short series then we can ask MS for another 1v1 100k tournament maybe that will bring Grunt back :D

 

[green eggs]

GSL is definitely better than double elimination. IIRC, the only reason we had so many double elimination tournaments back in the day was that there were so few top players, so double elimination was the only way to make a high-level tournament that wouldn't be over in a weekend and wouldn't involve several pointless rounds of higher seeds sweeping lower seeds. Thankfully, that's not a problem for us anymore! I'm more neutral when it comes to whether GSL is better than single elimination.

I do think that there should be some advantage given in the playoff match to the WL player over the LW player. For instance, take the (fairly plausible) scenario where DauT loses to Liereyy, Nicov beats Vinchester, and then Nicov wins a close playoff match 3-2. This would be pretty harsh on DauT, I think. So maybe it would be fair to have a rule where if the players met already, the winner of the earlier set starts with a 1-0 advantage in the playoff.

(To clarify, what I'm suggesting wouldn't apply if DauT were to meet Vinchester in the playoff. In that scenario, both of them will have had identical results—a loss vs Liereyy, and a win vs Nicov—so it wouldn't be fair to penalize Vinchester just because of the order in which those sets were played.)

 

[JoshuaR]

I prefer this group stage format to double elimination. The only potential match repeats we have are in this earlier week final round of the group stage. We don't have to wait weeks later for the final. The undefeated person doesn't have to defeat the same person twice. There's more excitement at every other point that THIS IS IT.

I am very happy with the format chosen for KotD3.

 

[nimanoe]

GSL is definitely better than double elimination. IIRC, the only reason we had so many double elimination tournaments back in the day was that there were so few top players, so double elimination was the only way to make a high-level tournament that wouldn't be over in a weekend and wouldn't involve several pointless rounds of higher seeds sweeping lower seeds. Thankfully, that's not a problem for us anymore! I'm more neutral when it comes to whether GSL is better than single elimination.

I prefer this group stage format to double elimination. The only potential match repeats we have are in this earlier week final round of the group stage. We don't have to wait weeks later for the final. The undefeated person doesn't have to defeat the same person twice. There's more excitement at every other point that THIS IS IT.

I am very happy with the format chosen for KotD3.

The way you guys are describing Double Elimination makes me think you are talking about it as the format for the play-offs, while @RobChang wanted to use it as a group stage format.
The GSL System for example is also a double elimination format for groups of four, but the double elimination format robchang meant has groups of eight players/teams.

The big difference between using it as a group stage instead of as a play-off format is that there are no rematches, so there's no ultimate finals (after winner bracket finals and loser bracket finals). That means you don't have to come up with some advantage for the player in the finals which came from the winners bracket. It also means that there's no big waiting time for the loser bracket to "catch up" to the winner bracket.

 

[Rey_Fer]

I also dislike GSL as I consider it a half-double elimination.

a full RR would have been best. The way to solve the potential "uninteresting" matches from R3 is to change the prize for 3rd and 4th place

 

[MembTV]

I also dislike GSL as I consider it a half-double elimination.

a full RR would have been best. The way to solve the potential "uninteresting" matches from R3 is to change the prize for 3rd and 4th place

RR is trash, reasons, you need 1 week more than with our system because we would need that 3rd week instead of saturday like is GSL, would need sunday too, just to have 50% of the games useless because 4 players would be qualified and 4 players would be out pretty much, just to play to get 3rd position instead of 4 and win 100$ more? so exciting to me.

The system we have, make every game exciting, can be some repeat match? so? if you put a group stage, there is always to have a repeat match even in later stage, quarters, semis or even final, happen in every e-sport or sports, not a problem.

And with 64 players, including group stage, we have a pretty "fast" tournament not super long, and players do not have weeks where they do not play, no long waited period.

No matter what we do, there is always people not happy 100% or prefer other system, i love the feedback, but till now regarding the format we used, i didn´t read something that i prefer more than current KOTD, about civlizs, number of players or some stuff, all can be changed a bit, but the single elimination plus GSL honestly i love it, i might be biased, possible but im very realistic, i wasn´t super happy with KOTD2 after we did it, now im super happy with KOTD3, got feeling is going to be huge at the end of the tournament, or hope so,

 

[KolyaKrasotkin]

The system we have, make every game exciting, can be some repeat match? so?

I also like the used system very much. As probably the most important distinction in the group stage is between advancing and not advancing, it even makes sense to have seeds 2 and 3 of a group probably meet twice.

However, if one would like to reduce the probability of repeats, maybe it could be started with the pairings #1 against #3 and #2 against #4, keeping all other gsl rules?

 

[Rey_Fer]

i didn´t read something that i prefer more than current KOTD, about civlizs, number of players or some stuff,

Number of players and civ system is just perfect, no changes there.

Only thing I'd do is make the drafts at least 24h before the match, so that less time is wasted, some hype can be made, and players and viewers can think what the strategies are

 

[MembTV]

Number of players and civ system is just perfect, no changes there.

Only thing I'd do is make the drafts at least 24h before the match, so that less time is wasted, some hype can be made, and players and viewers can think what the strategies are

we make the draft before the games happens, there is 0 time wasted.

No need to make 24 hours before, people has life and already commit alot to the game, to make schedule for another day before the matches happens, would be double the effort for everyone which is not needed.

 

[RobChang]

RR is trash, reasons, you need 1 week more than with our system because we would need that 3rd week instead of saturday like is GSL, would need sunday too, just to have 50% of the games useless because 4 players would be qualified and 4 players would be out pretty much, just to play to get 3rd position instead of 4 and win 100$ more? so exciting to me.

The system we have, make every game exciting, can be some repeat match? so? if you put a group stage, there is always to have a repeat match even in later stage, quarters, semis or even final, happen in every e-sport or sports, not a problem.

And with 64 players, including group stage, we have a pretty "fast" tournament not super long, and players do not have weeks where they do not play, no long waited period.

No matter what we do, there is always people not happy 100% or prefer other system, i love the feedback, but till now regarding the format we used, i didn´t read something that i prefer more than current KOTD, about civlizs, number of players or some stuff, all can be changed a bit, but the single elimination plus GSL honestly i love it, i might be biased, possible but im very realistic, i wasn´t super happy with KOTD2 after we did it, now im super happy with KOTD3, got feeling is going to be huge at the end of the tournament, or hope so,

Still, I dont see any argument that is in favor of the rematch system in the same stage of the tournament. Yes rematches can be nice, but they should usually only happen very late in the tournament. Here a win in g1 stages doesnt award you anything, no advancing to another stage, easier followup bracket nothing, not even better prizepool share. Why do you want to have the same matchup with same settings in one stage of your tournament ? In fact I see you dont want them but you accept them. But what about the system that is basically the same, yet avoids the rematches within the same stage of the tournament. And that is totally possible as discussed before. There is therefore only improvement in my view.

 

[nimanoe]

Here a win in g1 stages doesnt award you anything, no advancing to another stage, easier followup bracket nothing, not even better prizepool share.

Disagreed, a win in Round 1 awards you with an easier path to qualifying. If you win round 1 you get 2 chances to qualify, if we assume that the player who wins the first round isn't first seed, he'll most likely get a tough round 2, with a small chance (not none!) to qualify. If that player loses, he'll face someone else in round 3 to qualify again (possibly a rematch). That player will then have a decent chance to qualify.
If the player lost in round 1 they'll get a possibly easier opponent, but still a non-zero chance to lose and then probably a similar opponent as in the previous scenario.
Therefore winning round 1 gives the player a chance to upset and removes the chance to get upset in round 2.
It feels like you're assuming that if you win in round 1 you automatically lose in round 2 or if you lose in round 1 that you'll automatically win in round 2 which is not true at all.

 

[D_Cool]

The GSL style groups seem fairly good overall but it does seem a shame we get match ups repeating so much. Think the format would be better if after the first 4 matches 2nd in one group played 3rd in another group rather than the same one to determine who progresses.

 

[Rey_Fer]

Here a win in g1 stages doesnt award you anything, no advancing to another stage, easier followup bracket nothing, not even better prizepool share.

Aren't the ones qualifyed as 1st in their groups guaranteed to meet a 2nd pos. in QF? That means in QF you'll play against someone that has already lost a match in the tournament while you haven't

 

[MembTV]

The GSL style groups seem fairly good overall but it does seem a shame we get match ups repeating so much. Think the format would be better if after the first 4 matches 2nd in one group played 3rd in another group rather than the same one to determine who progresses.

then people will complain that some got easier matches in one group than the other, so you better face with ur group even if you have to repeat, the system is the most fair, and give very fair chances to all.

 

[philipp94831]

Great tournament so far and looking forward to the play-offs! I think the issue with repeating match-ups could have been solved if first round was 1-3 and 2-4, so 1-2 and 3-4 meet next and then 2-3 if seeding was accurate

 

[D_Cool]

then people will complain that some got easier matches in one group than the other, so you better face with ur group even if you have to repeat, the system is the most fair, and give very fair chances to all.

Hi Memb - I think KOTD is a great tournament and agreed - differences of opinion on the format are just personal preference!

 

[amazing_knight]

Whether this format is good or not is another question.

But trying out new formats is a good idea in itself.

I'm a viewer and I constantly need new stuff okay!

 

[RobChang]

Disagreed, a win in Round 1 awards you with an easier path to qualifying. If you win round 1 you get 2 chances to qualify, if we assume that the player who wins the first round isn't first seed, he'll most likely get a tough round 2, with a small chance (not none!) to qualify. If that player loses, he'll face someone else in round 3 to qualify again (possibly a rematch). That player will then have a decent chance to qualify.
If the player lost in round 1 they'll get a possibly easier opponent, but still a non-zero chance to lose and then probably a similar opponent as in the previous scenario.
Therefore winning round 1 gives the player a chance to upset and removes the chance to get upset in round 2.
It feels like you're assuming that if you win in round 1 you automatically lose in round 2 or if you lose in round 1 that you'll automatically win in round 2 which is not true at all.

They dont get easier bracket compared to the other one. They play a stronger opponent later while the other gets an easier one and then meet again. They dont advance any stage further than the opponent they lost to got and hence dont get any penny more than someone going out group stage without any win. That is clearly meaningless. Just because of having the chance to reach the quarterfinals in the better spot that is no real advantage or reward. That is like the advantage of playing earlier on a day.

Just end group stage after two rounds. Then you have someone qualified to round of 8 already, someone fallen out of tournament and then you have 4 round of 12 matches to fill up the missing 4 places in the quarterfinals. Literally the same structure just that you mix groups to 100% avoid too early rematches. And you value round 1 more since it means that you will end group stage as second at least which means you get easier opponent in group stage then the one you beat when he qualfies for that stage in the second chance.

You can argue as much as you want that there might be advantages, but still I feel the system is not good enough and makes me sad when the first round of group stage is more falling flat than one week of waiting has hoped for. Just the possibility of the upset that are very unlikely doesnt hype me at all, when I think some change could improve that.

Currently the bracket looks like:

I just want that two player positions are exchanged.

D3<-> C3, A3<->B3 and give those who finish top 12 that ranking, honor it with some money and I am fine. Someone being Top 12 and not top 16 is a very important information and difference.

Ok, and I would do Decider stage bo7 already and without any player bans but random bans 10 civs for some civ variety :D

But ofc just my two cents I am hyped for the tournament and waiting kills me thats why I write so much about the brackets :D I love it.

 

[The_ChinChilla]

If repeated matches are such an issue, the next tournament ought to be "Hungry King: GG NO RE I GO EAT edition", B01, single elimination. So you wont hv to suffer potentially 5 more repeated matches of Daut vs Nicov.

And if earlier wins should matter more than later wins, GG Nicov, you noob losing to Dracken :P

 

[nimanoe]

Great tournament so far and looking forward to the play-offs! I think the issue with repeating match-ups could have been solved if first round was 1-3 and 2-4, so 1-2 and 3-4 meet next and then 2-3 if seeding was accurate

For entertainment value that would perhaps be better, but it doesn't make too much sense from a competitive point of view, as it would be better to be seed number 2 than seed number 1 and it would be better to be seed number 4 over seed number 3.

They dont get easier bracket compared to the other one. They play a stronger opponent later while the other gets an easier one and then meet again. They dont advance any stage further than the opponent they lost to got and hence dont get any penny more than someone going out group stage without any win. That is clearly meaningless. Just because of having the chance to reach the quarterfinals in the better spot that is no real advantage or reward. That is like the advantage of playing earlier on a day.

Let's look at the impact of the first round.
For the second round:
1) If the other match-up in round 1 was an upset where the better player loses, than it's clearly better to win round 1 as you'll get an easier round two.
2) If there was no upset in the other match, it's still better to play a hard match to qualify than an easy match to get eliminated.

For the third round, there's no advantage or disadvantage if you won the first round.

Perhaps there should be a difference in prizes between the third and fourth place in each group, but that's a different issue.

Currently the bracket looks like:

Spoiler: bracket

I just want that two player positions are exchanged.

D3<-> C3, A3<->B3 and give those who finish top 12 that ranking, honor it with some money and I am fine. Someone being Top 12 and not top 16 is a very important information and difference.

My main problem with this is that it could incentivize players to lose. For example if a player from group A thinks B2 is worse than B3 and doesn't care about who they'll face in the quarterfinals, it would be better for them to lose.

If you could somehow prevent this, I think it would be a good solution to prevent duplicate match-ups from happening, but I don't see that realistically happening.

 

[Michaerbse]

My main problem with this is that it could incentivize players to lose. For example if a player from group A thinks B2 is worse than B3 and doesn't care about who they'll face in the quarterfinals, it would be better for them to lose.

Well the idea was to stop "group stage" after two rounds so there is no match where you would have an incentive to lose

 

[RobChang]

For entertainment value that would perhaps be better, but it doesn't make too much sense from a competitive point of view, as it would be better to be seed number 2 than seed number 1 and it would be better to be seed number 4 over seed number 3.

Let's look at the impact of the first round.
For the second round:
1) If the other match-up in round 1 was an upset where the better player loses, than it's clearly better to win round 1 as you'll get an easier round two.
2) If there was no upset in the other match, it's still better to play a hard match to qualify than an easy match to get eliminated.

For the third round, there's no advantage or disadvantage if you won the first round.

Perhaps there should be a difference in prizes between the third and fourth place in each group, but that's a different issue.

My main problem with this is that it could incentivize players to lose. For example if a player from group A thinks B2 is worse than B3 and doesn't care about who they'll face in the quarterfinals, it would be better for them to lose.

If you could somehow prevent this, I think it would be a good solution to prevent duplicate match-ups from happening, but I don't see that realistically happening.

When they are playing first round they dont even know who is B2 or B3. Because there can be an upset in the other matches as much as you argue it could happen here as well making the difference. And yet again if such issue are worried upon, then thats the problem of the schedule not the brackets.

 

[Tiascai]

The system we have, make every game exciting,

I agree 100%. Havent have this "sensation" in a long time in a aoe tournament. With all this sistem you can be almost sure that "the best will win" and you want to see every match because A LOT is a stake. Every game is almost going home, that is how it is supposed to be.

Also this allows a lot of "surprises" that are not in fact.A tournament shouldnt give a **** about how good you were in the past or not. You have to play for win (except some final tournament in a year for example, with bets 16 guys from the year or so, like in some sports). Gogogo!.

 

[Ovenka]

The best gaming day today, incredible.

btw. just Hail to him please...

 

[Freezing_Point]

The best gaming day today, incredible.

btw. just Hail to him please...

In answer to the prior complaint that next week's decider rounds will just reprise matches from earlier rounds...

Well, only one of the ones from today will be a repeat.