Shall we end group stage

#1

Anguibok

I want to open this debate : Shall we end group stage ?

Since it doesn't really matter since a team could do 5-0 in group to end 0-2 in Playoffs, and we lack of time, why make so many games are played with such low stakes.
So question is shall we replace group stage and playoffs, with quadrupleElim/Swiss only, it's the same number of game almost (42 vs 48, only 6 more), but more importantly, we can make a split in 5 weeks, instead of 7, and give more places to T2

Long ramble
https://youtube.com/shorts/Kwga24ag8mo?feature=share

Thougth ?

EDIT pick of Quad Elim (It's could also be swiss, the quad elim I propose and Swiss are both the same mathematically speaking) : https://imgur.com/04loTZJ.png

#2

chinesesalesmen

0

Frags

+

–

quad elim

#3

delighted

0

Frags

+

–

quad elim sounds fire

#4

D4v1d_fan

7

Frags

+

–

The purpose of a league is to have teams grow over the period of the competition. Every game actually has the same stakes and it forces teams to improve when they have a bad start. Last year we see this with PRX qualifying and winning toronto from being 0 - 3 in groups. The only low stakes matches might be including teams who went 0-4 or between teams who alr qualify for playoffs and that usually happens right at the end of group stage.

#8

Anguibok

0

Frags

+

–

In both case team have 4 games to grow over the competition, so they can improve even if they have a bad start, so I don't understand your point ^^

Don't forget, even for non 0-4 teams, in group stage you also have game where the result doesnt change the rank in last round.

PRX qualifying and winning toronto from being 0 - 3 in groups

Thats kinda the point, group stage is so mush less stakes than playoffs, so why not have playoffs only if we don't have any downside.

#18

D4v1d_fan

0

Frags

+

–

The first point also eliminates your point (?) Since group stage already delivers that 4 games to help team grow and now you want to replace it with a new system that pretty much do the same except could be more punishing for teams who are bad in the beginning.

The only thing i agree with your system is deleting 0-4 / teams matches immediately but other than that i dont see anymore advantage this new system will bring except Time for T2 which riot and most viewers barely even care except for certain regions.

I also agree with your other idea of swiss stage for all 12 teams cause it will be fair compared to quad elims

#5

mondely

1

Frags

+

–

nah groups are becoming more interesting with teams being more competitive

#6

nAtsbiggestfan2

1

Frags

+

–

bro really hates giving c9 fans hope.....

#7

aiminverylabs

2

Frags

+

–

quad elim

#9

ggd12345

0

Frags

+

–

(i wrote this before seeing your bracket, i'll comment on that at the end)

i don't really like quad elim because early wins matter so much more than late wins. for example, a team with a bye only needs to win 2 games before they have 4 chances to qualify. new bracket for reference (here they are seeded 1 (a) to 12 (l) and the higher seed wins each time):

-----------------------------------------------------
el . de . . . . ad . . . . . . . . . . . ab . a
fk . cf . . . . bc
gj . bg
hi . ah
-----------------------------------------------------
. . . hl . eh . ce . . . . . . . cd . bc . b
. . . gk . fg . df
. . . fj
. . . ei
-----------------------------------------------------
. . . il . gi . eg . . . . . ef . de . cd . c
. . . jk . hj . fh
-----------------------------------------------------
. . . . . . ik . hi . gh . fg . ef . de . d
. . . . . . jl . gj

a team with a bye could go WWLLLW and qualify (3-3), while a non-bye team could go WLLWLWWWWWL (7-4) and not qualify.

naturally, the fix would be something swiss-like, like in the traditional 16-team swiss where each win and loss is equally important. however, this is of course difficult with only 12 teams, more than 3-5 games per team, and only picking 4 to advance. (for example, the T2 swiss stages, which require 4 wins to advance, have a weird 3-2 vs 2-3 matchup in the middle, and there would only be more of this when you deviate further.)

okay so now that i saw your bracket: i can't really understand what's going on here? two teams disappear in bracket 2, round 4; the arrows from bracket 2, round 5 point to nothing; and one team magically appeared in bracket 4, round 6. another issue arises with trying to fit our current 12 teams, since deleting 4 teams from this bracket has some bad effects down the line (e.g. two teams in bracket 3, round 4 get a bye while the others don't). however, i like how this addresses my issue of upper bracket matches "skipping to the right" a ton, as it did in my bracket, so if we can work this out that i am all for it!

#14

Anguibok

0

Frags

+

–

hehehe we are on the same page here my bro, in my system you are qualified if you are in +4

About the .png, it's not that clear, but I'm pretty sure no team disapear
To help you to visualize, I did that https://imgur.com/PG8SWBP.png, as you can see you qualify either in 4-0, 5-1, or with 6 wins (usually 6-2, but if the team that win this come from the 3L bracket he will be in 6-3)

In short, after 4 game you have :

1 team in 4-0
4 teams in 3-1
6 teams in 2-2
4 teams in 1-3 (Thoose 4 team are the only one that play the last chance game, the 2 winner join the 6 teams, in the 3rd bracket)
1 teams in 0-4

Then you have 4 team in mid bracket and 8 in lower bracket and math are mathing

#16

ggd12345

0

Frags

+

–

this is actually a pretty good system! if we can make it 12 teams i would definitely be in support. the downsides are that it's confusing to casual players, and you can't prepare ahead of time. but this does fit the sweet spot of most teams playing 6-7 (haha) games, with only two teams playing 4.

another curiosity: which games should be BO5? the 3-0 game (qualification match) should be a BO5, but then you would have teams doing a BO5 then doing a non-BO5 after, which is a bit weird

#19

Anguibok

0

Frags

+

–

I think the team in 4-0 plays the team in 5-1 for the first spot, so we have only one team that play 4 games (but this team could play an exhibition game a little bit like a team in 0-4 in the current tournament, but is it's a T2 team, and it will probably be the case, it wont be needed)

Any team that is a qualification game should probably be in BO5, so thats maybe 3 or 4 BO5

#10

Targu1n

0

Frags

+

–

Imma be real your bracket looks like a nightmare for competitive integrity. Avoiding a bye round IS a worthwhile goal, but im not sure the "barrage" round route is a good idea. Some teams having to play a 'higher bracket loser' instead of a 'lower bracket winner' (while others dont) seems unfair.

Heres how it would look without the 'barrage' solution, to hopefully make it easier for others to understand what Anguibok changed (https://imgur.com/a/12jqnfU - edit: sry about the colours, was just using my Systems's colour-scheme and forgot that imgur would add their own background)

I dont think Swiss works here either.
Swiss has the problem that qualifying an even number of teams is basically impossible (youd have to end after round 2 to qual 4 teams -> single elim).
And to qualify 3 for Masters youd have 5 rounds -> [1x 0-4] [2x 1-4] [5x 2-3] [5x 3-2] [2x 4-1] [1x 4-0], but thats only double elim at that point.
Youd have to constantly introduce bye rounds (having the 4-1 and 1-4 teams play each other while everyone else has a bye for example) to continue.

The core idea of phasing out groups and using previous stage's results to seed (as they already do to seed the groups) instead is one thats worth experimenting with. It is pretty boring that we spend so much time playing a stage that basically only there for seeding.
Theres plenty casters/talent that would agree so we might see it tried down the line.

#15

Anguibok

0

Frags

+

–

Avoiding a bye round IS a worthwhile goal, but im not sure the "barrage" round route is a good idea.

Barrage is a bye for everyone, except for team from the 4th bracket (Before the merge with the 3rd). The proposition you gave is really different from my proposition, you added way more too many game, and this kind of bracket doesnt work.

About swiss, it's perfect mathematically speaking. (Because my bracket have the same math behind the swiss)

In short, after 4 game you have :

1 team in 4-0
4 teams in 3-1
6 teams in 2-2
4 teams in 1-3 (Thoose 4 team are the only one that play the "barrage" game, the 2 winner join the 6 teams, in the 3rd bracket)
1 teams in 0-4

Team in 4-0 is already qual,
Then you have 4 team in mid bracket and 8 in lower bracket and math are mathing

#11

Lordsalih

0

Frags

+

–

we already dont have much T1 games, i like the current format

#12

Targu1n

1

Frags

+

–

The proposed format would barely change the game count.
You could then run a better format for things like the EMEA clash with those extra 6 (based on their counting) games

edit: and my bracket above would even increase the game count to 54/55 (depending on if you qual 3 or 4 teams)

#13

Lordsalih

0

Frags

+

–

i wanna form a long answer but i cant rn, ill reply later, in short i want to see even the bad teams play at least 5 games, with true stakes, instead of "just" the emea clash, but its true that emea clash clash deserves a better format

#17

Dudhi

0

Frags

+

–

i think we just send in the coaches into a boxing ring instead