Improving tournament formats

What does HLTV.org's Tomi "lurppis" Kovanen think about tournament formats in modern Counter-Strike? Check out a new proposed group stage format and changes in other stages of the tournament below.

The idea for writing this article came to me after a friend told me of a tournament format for group stage that is apparently used in some StarCraft2 events. I have always felt like group stages often provide very random results for various reasons; whether it's because top teams aren't fully motivated to give it their all knowing their tournament isn't on the line as they can still make up for a loss, or because of threeway ties that have ended tournaments of countless teams over the years due to terrible tie breakers that rely on rounds. 
Regardless, in my opinion group stages were never a good or necessarily even a very fair way to decide the advancing teams, but unfortunately, they were, and still are, a necessity. While on the subject, I also went over my thoughts for other stages of a tournament and touched up on map choices and picking sides.
Group stage
First of all, the score in a match shouldn't matter – you should be motivated to win, and as long as you do, I do not think the score should make any difference at all. It's a cool statistic for people to look at after all, like any other statistic, but I think that's all it should be.
Second of all, I think group stages need to be simplified. Often fans are confused regarding round differences and various different tiebreakers when trying to figure out if their favorite team will advance with a 16-8 win or if the other match tying would mean their team no longer has a chance to advance.
I was a vocal member in the conversation and believe I kickstarted the process of ESL changing their rules from having to play out all 30 rounds in group stages (which always ended up wasting time because the winning team was no longer trying), and although this is a bigger change, it also makes sense from all perspectives – I would argue it's better not only for the player, but also for the spectators and the event organizers.
I think the best way to setup groups is still with different seeding pools (high-medium-low-unranked), as this limits the possibility of manipulating groups by tournament organizers, and also helps later on with the re-seeding process of playoffs I will explain. It also takes some pressure off event organizers, as it is significantly easier to place all teams in a correct seeding pool than seeding them one by one, especially towards the bottom.
New Group Stage Format
Round 1 of Group X (# 1 seed Team A, #2 seed Team B, #3 seed Team C, #4 seed Team D)
Match #1: Other #1 seed Team A vs. Other #4 seed Team D 
Match #2: Other #2 seed Team B vs. Other #3 seed Team C
Round 2 of Group X
Match #3: Winner of Match #1 vs. Winner of Match #2 – winner wins the group
Match #4: Loser of Match #1 vs. Loser of Match #2 – loser places fourth and is out of the group
Round 3 of Group X
Match #5: Loser of Match #3 vs. Winner of Match #4 – winner advances as #2, loser is out
Notably no match can end in a tie – overtimes will be played out until a winner is found. This way each team has a chance of advancing with two wins, or can be knocked out by two losses. The system is very simple and clear to follow and there is no confusion. You can no longer win your last match, and still go out; you have full control of your destiny and each match will always be exciting, although one could argue Match #1 will be quickly over in most groups with weaker teams, every other match should be very interesting.
From an event organizer's point of view this should be a no-brainer assuming players agree on it – it removes the possibility of threeway ties, all problems regarding tiebreaker rules, the need (if there ever was any) to play out all 30 rounds and with that some time, and one match, also saving time. At IEM 6 World Championship, Carmac told me that each match in the same round had to start on the same time so teams could not lose on purpose or know just how many rounds they needed to win to advance or mess up some other team's chances by manipulating the rounds. This format will get rid of all those problems. The only negative is that it would be easy to set yourself up to finish second due to a lack of threeway ties à la the thrown match by mousesports against Lions at DreamHack Winter 2011, but if you set the bracket play up correctly, that won't be a problem either.
Speaking from a player’s point of view – this would be a great upgrade for the current situation where you never really know where you truly stand due to threeway ties, round differences and the possibility of ties. I think the fact that your last match will determine your fate in the tournament is the perfect way to put it, since it will always mean that one is the most meaningful. Also, you will never be able to drop out after two wins anymore – there can no more be 2-1-0 ties among three teams. Not having to play meaningless matches after being eliminated or advancing that likely can influence the other team's chances in the tournament is also a very welcome change, as sometimes a team can get a free win over a good team simply because they are already out and have no motivation to try to win. The winner of the group will also get another reward as they get to rest slightly longer and only have to play two matches and are able to save their strategies and setups for more later, potentially more difficult, matchups.
The final way to look at this would be from a spectator's point of view. I think the current group system can be very confusing especially with tournaments choosing to use different tiebreaker rules, and this system obviously would fix that issue entirely. Spectators and players alike should not have to keep a mental tally in their head of every match going on in order to figure out who will be advancing from each group. With the systems we have now, people are constantly questioning how the tie breaker system will work. Due to the fact this group stage system can't have ties, it would actually make groups seem like playoff matches as well, adding more intensity and importance to them, which obviously bodes well for the viewer. A spectator can at any given point of time look at the standings, and know exactly what is at stake in every single match. Every round will count and every match will matter.
Finally, it takes out some of the importance over which side to start a map on because round difference doesn't matter anymore, so winning 16-14 with a nice comeback in the second half is not only just as good as a quick 16-1 overrun, but it can obviously benefit the team due to boosted morale. With this system, higher seeds recieve the benefit of playing their weakest competition first. As it stands now, there is no system of organizing who will be playing who in the group and inevitably you end up with matches that will mean nothing to the advancing teams. This new system would remove that waste of time.
Tournaments also have to stop giving teams preferential treatment regarding schedules and actually enforce the normal way of placing teams in groups – the number one seed has to be in group A, number two in group B and so on. Currently it's either completely random or organizers are able to give teams preferential treatment. 
Map picks
While the current way to pick maps is generally fine and I don't really feel the need to necessarily improve it, I do think there is a better alternative out there, and it was in fact used by ESL's first Extreme Masters seasons. Here is how it worked:
Lower seed removes the first map, higher second, and they alternate until there is just one map left for a best-of-one, such as a group stage match. For best-of-threes, they alternate on removing maps until there are three maps left, at which point each team picks their own map. The thing about this system is, that the last map remaining, is actually played first, and the loser's map always follows after.
This adds elements of strategy for teams who have a very strong map and don't want to risk a series going to 3 maps. Currently map picks are often not very interesting because most teams have figured out what maps their opponents remove or play most of the time, so this would definitely add more strategy to it.
Picking sides
I believe a knife round is the best way to pick sides as it still does come down to having a skill, even if not used during the regular match, which is better than the pure luck of a coin toss. I think we could figure out certain standard rules for knife rounds such as are you allowed to use heights to your advantage or not (which in my opinion you shouldn't, it should be on even ground to keep it fair and speed up the process). Regardless, knife rounds are a far superior method of choosing sides over either team getting to pick, which benefits teams whose strong maps are heavily one sided.
Bracket play
One major problem certain tournaments have caused over the years, such as DreamHack Winter 2011, is announcing how the bracket will play after group stage, which can lead to losing matches on purpose a´la mousesports vs Lions. That should never under any circumstances be announced before.
Now, there are a couple of different ways to go at it, you can either do it by seeding based on the original seeds and pre-determined positions in the bracket, but if that is the case they should never be announced before hand.
I also think randomly drawing brackets is a completely acceptable way of doing it, as it completely eliminates the chance of teams trying to manipulat the brackets, but it can also lead to mTw-Na`Vi type scenarios where one team simply doesn't catch a break and always ends up playing the team that they had had difficulty with early on in single elimination.
Lastly, I think re-seeding teams before the bracket stage would be a good idea. This would have to be based on finishing first or second in the group (as in, if there were four groups all winners would be seeded 1-4, second places 5-8), but you would not look at the round difference to determine it. This is where the traditional seeding with rankings would take place, and you would go back to recent history to determine the seedings. With less teams now, it's even easier now to seed correctly.
As far as double elimination goes; it's a CLEARLY superior format, however, unless there is time to do it in best-of-three, I don't think it should be used. I think playoffs in any Counter-Strike tournament should always be played in a best-of-three format, as best-of'-one can simply be way too random.
Something interesting the NHL does in its Stanley Cup playoffs is re-seeding after every round (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Stanley_Cup_playoffs#Playoff_bracket). Normally this makes a bigger difference in brackets that include more teams, but it would help even with just eight teams.
The main advantage of re-seeding is that a low seed can not steal a top seeded team's path in the bracket by a single upset win, and it would therefore award teams with long standing history of good placings and solid play. As it stands now you can take one glance at a bracket and unless there are major upsets, know how it will play out in the end based on the upcoming matchups. Re-seeding adds a little variance into play, and makes it more interesting.
After teams are assigned seedings in the beginning of bracket play, you will adjust the matchups after every round of play based on the seeds left in play. For example:
Round 1 of playoffs
#1 vs #8 - #1 wins
#4 vs #5 - #5 wins
#3 vs #6 - #6 wins
#2 vs #7 - #7 wins
Round 2 of playoffs
#1 vs #7
#5 vs #6
As you can see above, the highest seed will always face the lowest seed available, therefore maintaining their advantage they've earned by obtaining the highest seed.
I hope players fans and tournament admins alike agree with me that this format provides the most viewing entertainment for fans, the best playing experience for players, and the least amount of annoyance for the admins. It allows for the fairest and most straightforward format of tournament play.
I have contacted the admins I have kept in touch with including ESL and urged them to change formats, but I can't do it alone, so if you agree this format works out best for all involved, talk to your local event organizers, point them to this article and ask them to consider changing.
What do you think of the changes proposed in this article? Do you agree with the group stage, map picks, side picks and the bracket play? Which ones would you add in your tournament? Leave a comment below.

The idea for writing this article came to me after a friend told me of a tournament format for group stage that is apparently used in some StarCraft2 events. I have always felt like group stages often provide very random results for various reasons; whether it's because top teams aren't fully motivated to give it their all knowing their tournament isn't on the line as they can still make up for a loss, or because of threeway ties that have ended tournaments of countless teams over the years due to terrible tie breakers that rely on rounds. 

Regardless, in my opinion group stages were never a good or necessarily even a very fair way to decide the advancing teams, but unfortunately, they were, and still are, a necessity. While on the subject, I also went over my thoughts for other stages of a tournament and touched up on map selection and picking sides.

Group stage

First of all, the score in a match shouldn't matter – you should be motivated to win, and as long as you do, I do not think the score should make any difference at all. It's a cool statistic for people to look at after all, like any other statistic, but I think that's all it should be.

Second of all, I think group stages need to be simplified. Often fans are confused regarding round differences and various different tiebreakers when trying to figure out if their favorite team will advance with a 16-8 win or if the other match tying would mean their team no longer has a chance to advance.


What? We needed two more rounds to advance? 

I was a vocal member in the conversation and believe I kickstarted the process of ESL changing their rules from having to play out all 30 rounds in group stages (which always ended up wasting time because the winning team was no longer trying), and although this is a bigger change, it also makes sense from all perspectives – I would argue it's better not only for the player, but also for the spectators and the event organizers.

I think the best way to setup groups is still with different seeding pools (high-medium-low-unranked), as this limits the possibility of manipulating groups by tournament organizers, and also helps later on with the re-seeding process of playoffs I will explain. It also takes some pressure off event organizers, as it is significantly easier to place all teams in a correct seeding pool than seeding them one by one, especially towards the bottom.

Below is an example of how the new group stage system works:

Notably no match can end in a tie – overtimes will be played out until a winner is found. This way each team has a chance of advancing with two wins, or can be knocked out by two losses. The system is very simple and clear to follow and there is no confusion. You can no longer win your last match, and still go out; you have full control of your destiny and each match will always be exciting, although one could argue Match #1 will be quickly over in most groups with weaker teams, every other match should be very interesting.

From an event organizer's point of view this should be a no-brainer assuming players agree on it – it removes the possibility of threeway ties, all problems regarding tiebreaker rules, the need (if there ever was any) to play out all 30 rounds and with that some time, and one match, also saving time. At IEM 6 World Championship, Carmac told me that each match in the same round had to start on the same time so teams could not lose on purpose or know just how many rounds they needed to win to advance or mess up some other team's chances by manipulating the rounds. This format will get rid of all those problems. The only negative is that it would be easy to set yourself up to finish second due to a lack of threeway ties à la the thrown match by mousesports against Lions at DreamHack Winter 2011, but if you set the bracket play up correctly, that won't be a problem either.

Speaking from a player’s point of view – this would be a great upgrade for the current situation where you never really know where you truly stand due to threeway ties, round differences and the possibility of ties. I think the fact that your last match will determine your fate in the tournament is the perfect way to put it, since it will always mean that one is the most meaningful. Also, you will never be able to drop out after two wins anymore – there can no more be 2-1-0 ties among three teams. Not having to play meaningless matches after being eliminated or advancing that likely can influence the other team's chances in the tournament is also a very welcome change, as sometimes a team can get a free win over a good team simply because they are already out and have no motivation to try to win. The winner of the group will also get another reward as they get to rest slightly longer and only have to play two matches and are able to save their strategies and setups for more later, potentially more difficult, matchups.


An entire group stage filled with potential threeway ties coming down to round difference

The final way to look at this would be from a spectator's point of view. I think the current group system can be very confusing especially with tournaments choosing to use different tiebreaker rules, and this system obviously would fix that issue entirely. Spectators and players alike should not have to keep a mental tally in their head of every match going on in order to figure out who will be advancing from each group. With the systems we have now, people are constantly questioning how the tie breaker system will work. Due to the fact this group stage system can't have ties, it would actually make groups seem like playoff matches as well, adding more intensity and importance to them, which obviously bodes well for the viewer. A spectator can at any given point of time look at the standings, and know exactly what is at stake in every single match. Every round will count and every match will matter.

Finally, it takes out some of the importance over which side to start a map on because round difference doesn't matter anymore, so winning 16-14 with a nice comeback in the second half is not only just as good as a quick 16-1 overrun, but it can obviously benefit the team due to boosted morale. With this system, higher seeds recieve the benefit of playing their weakest competition first. As it stands now, there is no system of organizing who will be playing who in the group and inevitably you end up with matches that will mean nothing to the advancing teams. This new system would remove that waste of time.

Tournaments also have to stop giving teams preferential treatment regarding schedules and actually enforce the normal way of placing teams in groups – the number one seed has to be in group A, number two in group B and so on. Currently it's either completely random or organizers are able to give teams preferential treatment. 

Map selection

While the current way to pick maps is generally fine and I don't really feel the need to necessarily improve it, I do think there is a better alternative out there, and it was in fact used by ESL's first Extreme Masters seasons. Here is how it worked:

Lower seed removes the first map, higher second, and they alternate until there is just one map left for a best-of-one, such as a group stage match. For best-of-threes, they alternate on removing maps until there are three maps left, at which point each team picks their own map. The thing about this system is, that the last map remaining, is actually played first, and the loser's map always follows after.


Map selection waiting to happen at e-Stars Seoul 2011 

This adds elements of strategy for teams who have a very strong map and don't want to risk a series going to 3 maps. Currently map picks are often not very interesting because most teams have figured out what maps their opponents remove or play most of the time, so this would definitely add more strategy to it.

Picking sides

I believe a knife round is the best way to pick sides as it still does come down to having a skill, even if not used during the regular match, which is better than the pure luck of a coin toss. I think we could figure out certain standard rules for knife rounds such as are you allowed to use heights to your advantage or not (which in my opinion you shouldn't, it should be on even ground to keep it fair and speed up the process). Regardless, knife rounds are a far superior method of choosing sides over either team getting to pick, which benefits teams whose strong maps are heavily one sided.

Bracket play

One major problem certain tournaments have caused over the years, such as DreamHack Winter 2011, is announcing how the bracket will play after group stage, which can lead to losing matches on purpose a´la mousesports vs Lions. That should never under any circumstances be announced before.

Now, there are a couple of different ways to go at it, you can either do it by seeding based on the original seeds and pre-determined positions in the bracket, but if that is the case they should never be announced before hand.

I also think randomly drawing brackets is a completely acceptable way of doing it, as it completely eliminates the chance of teams trying to manipulat the brackets, but it can also lead to mTw-Na`Vi type scenarios where one team simply doesn't catch a break and always ends up playing the team that they had had difficulty with early on in single elimination.


So to avoid Na`Vi we should actually lose in group stage?

Lastly, I think re-seeding teams before the bracket stage would be a good idea. This would have to be based on finishing first or second in the group (as in, if there were four groups all winners would be seeded 1-4, second places 5-8), but you would not look at the round difference to determine it. This is where the traditional seeding with rankings would take place, and you would go back to recent history to determine the seedings. With less teams now, it's even easier now to seed correctly.

As far as double elimination goes; it's a CLEARLY superior format, however, unless there is time to do it in best-of-three, I don't think it should be used. I think playoffs in any Counter-Strike tournament should always be played in a best-of-three format, as best-of-one can simply be way too random.

Something interesting the NHL does in its Stanley Cup playoffs is re-seeding after every round. Normally this makes a bigger difference in brackets that include more teams, but it would help even with just eight teams.

The main advantage of re-seeding is that a low seed can not steal a top seeded team's path in the bracket by a single upset win, and it would therefore award teams with long standing history of good placings and solid play. As it stands now you can take one glance at a bracket and unless there are major upsets, know how it will play out in the end based on the upcoming matchups. Re-seeding adds a little variance into play, and makes it more interesting.

After teams are assigned seedings in the beginning of bracket play, you will adjust the matchups after every round of play based on the seeds left in play. For example:

As you can see above, the highest seed will always face the lowest seed available, therefore maintaining their advantage they've earned by obtaining the highest seed.

Wrap up

I hope players fans and tournament admins alike agree with me that this format provides the most viewing entertainment for fans, the best playing experience for players, and the least amount of annoyance for the admins. It allows for the fairest and most straightforward format of tournament play.

I have contacted the admins I have kept in touch with including ESL and urged them to change formats, but I can't do it alone, so if you agree this format works out best for all involved, talk to your local event organizers, point them to this article and ask them to consider changing.


Everyone knew DTS was done the second this bracket was published 

What do you think of the changes proposed in this article? Do you agree with the group stage, map picks, side picks and the bracket play? Which ones would you add in your tournament? Leave a comment below.

What a wall of words, gotta read this though.
2012-05-19 19:59
5 replies
China called, they want thier wall back!
2012-05-20 10:05
4 replies
L-O-L
2012-05-20 12:12
hahaha vn
2012-05-20 13:22
LOL Big LOL ;)
2012-05-21 15:21
lol +1
2012-05-25 21:50
Next time, write a book.
2012-05-19 20:00
5 replies
Badass over here!
2012-05-19 20:03
1 reply
ROFL
2012-05-19 20:16
too much for you kid?
2012-05-20 00:02
hahahahahaahha
2012-05-20 00:39
lets see
2012-05-19 20:02
can someone explain the article content in a few words ? thank you !
2012-05-19 20:02
4 replies
its cool!
2012-05-19 20:07
not really you have to read the whole thing to understand the point
2012-05-19 20:21
Improving tournament formats.
2012-05-20 10:29
chuj
2013-05-03 21:03
:)
2012-05-19 20:02
ok nice idea
2012-05-19 20:02
Just like Korean SC II group stage system (GOMTV GSL etc..,). Edit: SC II matches has no score, just best of 3 or best of 1. So mostly players ties each others with points and even Round difference. So SC II tournaments rather use this system than Football group stage system. If they use tiebreaker, it could take 2-3 hours. So it's easiest way of eliminate players in group. It's more like double bracket system in group (4 teams).
2012-05-19 20:16
interesting changes for groupstages, but i do believe it would be better to just keep the round average in case of tie, but limit the play to the first team to reach 16 rounds (no 30 rounds played, that's useless, but trying to get the maximum amount of rounds before loosing the game is fair, i guess) !
2012-05-19 20:05
U should write a book "Counter-Strike for noobs"..
2012-05-19 20:06
oh my god. you wasted your letters limit for this month lurppis. :p
2012-05-19 20:06
1 reply
haha
2012-05-20 12:16
Don't you think this procedure is too much to think of(consuming) and no one wants to spend so much time seeding and reseeding teams? Do you expect admins to make a correct decision while seeing a team?
2012-05-19 20:07
1 reply
#18
 | 
Russia goodjob
+1 considering that no one knows what will happen with CS
2012-05-19 20:12
I would agree with that 30 rounds thing. But with groupstages nahhh. Well actually sometimes even you can go through to the next round with 2 losses like 1st place wins 3 matches and the other 3 teams wins only 1 match, ant the round difference is counted. And bo3 in your words becomes like bo1 because basically the match is being decided in the first map. Like for example SK vs ESC. SK takes the first map train. Then they play TUSCAN and ESC would win it quite easily and then the third map MIRAGE would be a domination of SK. So, that means that the first map is crucial. Its like a 90 percent guarantee that the team who won the first map would win the whole match
2012-05-19 20:13
9 replies
#22
 | 
Russia goodjob
+infinity
2012-05-19 20:16
+1
2012-05-19 20:18
+1
2012-05-19 20:41
+1
2012-05-20 01:23
Yea but ESC would remove maps in wich they suck and SK is really good, and only maps that would remain would be ones in wich both teams have chances...
2012-05-20 02:16
4 replies
Dude, read what is written. A TEAM CAN CHOOSE THEIR BEST MAP
2012-05-20 07:54
3 replies
Yea but first teams remove maps in wich they SUCK!
2012-05-20 17:04
2 replies
so what? ussualy top teams have at least 2 maps where they are good
2012-05-20 18:15
1 reply
In bo3, teams end with 3 maps. I think every clever captain should remove their weakest maps, so your point is quite invalid. 2 of 3 should be their best maps and vice versa, which means you can see awesome matches.
2012-05-30 15:49
don't have time to read it all right now, but as far as I could I definitely agree with the fact that being kicked after a single loss in group stage in unfair, must kill the players' motivation. Like when eSahara who were eliminated in NY after a pretty bad loss to EG in the very first match of the tournament, but beat Lions, who passed thanks to a better score against EG
2012-05-19 20:12
Not so sure about the reseeding during playoffs, but the Broodwar-style groups would be awesome to see. The problem could be if there where alot of groups and fewer good teams meaning most matches would be between the worse teams as the better teams would have 2 easy matches.
2012-05-19 20:13
Lurrpprpriisisisis, If you have the time, it might be helpful to make a short video with an audible explanation. Good read though! Oh, and PLAY CS AGAIN!! <3
2012-05-19 20:16
kleobaa :D
2012-05-19 20:16
#25
 | 
Ukraine gungrave
Immolate Improved (c)
2012-05-19 20:17
That you need a wall of text to explain it shows it's too complicated. If football fans can understand their group system CS viewers can as well. Use that.
2012-05-19 20:18
3 replies
if there is a better way to do things, you should always consider it, even if I disagree with some of the points, such as what #17 said
2012-05-20 01:37
The wall of text doesnt just explain it, but explains WHY it should be used.
2012-05-20 12:10
#147
 | 
United States lurppis
the two small pictures explain the format: hltv.org/?pageid=154&galleryid=1693&pict.. hltv.org/?pageid=154&galleryid=1693&pict.. the rest is explaining why it's better and/or should be used, as davestr1zl said. you don't by any means need to read all of this to understand how it works.
2012-05-20 12:35
i agree with group stages part, but i dont think seeding over and over again its the best way, just use the initial seed. it will make it easier for everyone
2012-05-19 20:22
DIDN'T READ LOL
2012-05-19 20:26
uefa champions league, xD
2012-05-19 20:28
nice lurrpis . Well done
2012-05-19 20:28
totally agree with this. nj lurppis
2012-05-19 20:28
30 - no way, it is time consuming, plus teams will get tired playing bo3 on each map for 30 rounds, this is aswell for groupstage. 16 rounds is the best.
2012-05-19 20:30
gj lurppis, nice idea :)
2012-05-19 20:32
yeaaaaaaaa11111111111oeneonenoenonenoe
2012-05-19 20:34
agree with everything!
2012-05-19 20:35
love it
2012-05-19 20:36
I agree 100% percent with what ur saying sadly we have no online cs 1.6 servers in jordan so useless i hope any of the cs 1.6 huge companies contact any of the network providers in here to setup some servers since we are great players and u can see that on wcg tournament in jordan and i hope hltv starts covering that since its still a part of the world wcg since we need some online tournaments to make us go wide-world we have about 50000 cs player on jordan which have to go play with 80-130 even more ping on the other countries servers and mostly 100 ping and over
2012-05-19 20:37
1 reply
Hi there chaos
2012-05-20 14:29
I didn't read, but I completely agree.
2012-05-19 20:38
7 replies
haha!
2012-05-19 20:39
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
2012-05-19 20:45
lurppis? PROBABLY WISE WORDS, I AGREE BRAH.
2012-05-19 21:03
2 replies
More like. Improving? Long text? I agree.
2012-05-19 21:06
1 reply
The tl;dr way of life.
2012-05-19 21:13
LOL. i agree with lurpiss even though i haven't read it yet! =D
2012-05-20 03:00
JAJJAJAJA
2012-05-20 14:30
yeah it's good but it's not too many maps and too many round for teams? does they should tired of this?
2012-05-19 20:43
Writing about self in third person = win
2012-05-19 20:46
2 replies
i see what you did there :¬
2012-05-20 12:23
Can you smell what lurppis
2012-05-20 14:31
#49
 | 
Poland El Vis
hmm, but group stage was always like all of each matches between group members, in your idea it's like some kind of bracket instead. I mean - the idea of that is quite good but then don't call it group stage.
2012-05-19 20:47
/Agree
2012-05-19 20:48
I agree with everything you said except for map picks. If the teams can remove maps themselves, they can skip practice on certain maps and the fans will miss out on action at maps like tuscan, mirage, forge. And if a tournament decides to bring in some new maps (which I hope someone does) we'll probably never, ever see those get played. Great article tho lurrpis.
2012-05-19 20:51
13 replies
#68
 | 
United States lurppis
you don't like teams being able to remove maps themselves? you must have hated cs post-2007 then, because for the past 5 years every team has been able to remove 1-3 maps per match up
2012-05-19 22:02
12 replies
Just because I don't like that doesn't mean that I hate the game? With that logic you should hate CS aswell, and the brackets/groupplay should stay the same way because it's always been that way.
2012-05-19 23:07
11 replies
#78
 | 
United States lurppis
well you made it sound like i was changing the map picks, which i am not really. just because something has been one way for a long time doesn't mean it's how it should be, you must be pro-slavery and anti-gays then judging by that glorious logic of yours?
2012-05-19 23:13
10 replies
I was using your logic against you? "you don't like teams being able to remove maps themselves? you must have hated cs post-2007 then, because for the past 5 years every team has been able to remove 1-3 maps per match up" which made me write: "With that logic you should hate CS aswell, and the brackets/groupplay should stay the same way because it's always been that way." Do you think it's good that teams can stop practicing certain maps because they'll never get played? This makes it impossible for new maps to be played basically, and tuscan, forge and miragegames are rare, which is sad for fans who like to watch new maps (I feel like the old maps are kinda dull and overplayed). And no, I didn't make it sound like you was changing it, I was just disagreeing to your opinion about map picks.
2012-05-19 23:21
9 replies
#87
 | 
United States lurppis
hate is relative, in your situation (since you took it to heart) maybe dislike would have been a better fit. i hate group stages at tournaments, i've gotten fucked too many times because of round difference in meaningless matches. mirage and tuscan are played often, forge however isn't and that is because the map is bad in comparison so no one likes to play it. it's extremely hard to be good on 5 maps (near impossible), even harder to be good enough on five maps to be able to beat top teams on any of them. practicing 7 maps at once? impossible. people get paid less now and have more going on in real life than a few years ago as a result of less money and growing older, and even a few years ago it would have been impossible to practice that many maps. why? because there are only about 4-6 hours in a day you can find practice. of course we can also just start flipping coins by playing maps no one has ever practiced before, but personally i enjoy watching 2 good teams go at it on a map they are both good on, not a map one of them hates. i have no problem playing the same old six maps as always, although if it was up to me i would delete dust2 and stick to inf-train-nuke-tuscan-mirage. old but good maps > new but bad maps
2012-05-20 00:24
8 replies
I'd like to quote cArn, who seems to have a different view on new maps. "Kasta in skiten bara", which kinda translates to "Just throw them in", when asked about new maps =) If mirage is played often, I must be watching other tournaments then you, but I can agree to that tuscan is played kina often.
2012-05-20 00:38
6 replies
#93
 | 
United States lurppis
Once again, cArn was enjoying one of (if not the) highest salaries in CS when he was playing so if anything, after putting in some work (which he could have if he wanted to, as he played CS full time) his team would have benefited from more maps. It's a lot harder when you go to school or work like most teams out there and only make some money from CS. I only watch matches that are interesting to me so I suppose that might be the difference, but in those matches mirage has been played a lot and my teams always played it often.
2012-05-20 00:41
5 replies
Well, it's not strange that teams that play fulltime will be a bit better then other teams, that kinda applies to everything in CS aswell as every other job? I'm not so sure about salaries and all that stuff behind the scenes, but fnatic, Na'Vi, ESC and SK are the one's that can live of CS, am I right? These teams are already the ones who win the majority of the tournaments. However, the thing you said about 7 maps being too much might be right, tbh I'd like to see five totally new (good) maps in to a map pool, I think that would bring new interest for a lot of players and viewers. This will probably not happen in 1.6 tho, but it's something I hope will happen if CS:Promod somehow manages to become the #1 game.
2012-05-20 00:48
4 replies
#96
 | 
United States lurppis
Something a lot of people don't realize is that the average salary (and with that, the cost of living) in countries such as Ukraine and Poland is a fraction of what it is up here in the Nordics (e.g. average salary for men in Finland is 2,800€/month, in Ukraine its 260€/month). I don't like to comment on teams' personal businesses (as in how much money they make) but not everyone makes as much as you think, at least not in 2012 anymore. My point regarding your fulltime-comment was that it gives an extra advantage to people who can put in more time. I think seven maps is way too much, and I don't mind new maps (I really enjoy mirage and tuscan myself, as well as lite which is used in ESEA) but they have be good - forge is not.
2012-05-20 01:05
3 replies
As I said, I agree on that seven maps are too much. The best solution IMO is to have a map pool with five maps (new, good ones preferably), and each team can pick whatever map they want, this will punish people who decides that for example tuscan is boring, and therefore they want to skip it in every game.
2012-05-20 01:37
1 reply
#112
 | 
Finland FRGVN
imo map pool with tuscan train d2 nuke inferno/mirage would be the ideal case or mby even throwing lite in as lurppis said, I like it too.
2012-05-20 02:06
+1 for de_lite instead of de_forge. i was in US for a couple of months last year and played on ESEA for about one month.. and i have to admit that overall de_lite it's a better map than de_forge.way more balanced and requiers a higher level of imagination tactical-wise... i've tried suggesting it to our national league but didn't work out as planned.. even though i've stopped playing CS pro.. i still hope i will see de_lite being added to the international map pool
2012-05-21 13:24
I think its a very good format of tournament, mostly because the round-different really sucks. But i'm not agree with the re-seeding thing,if one team with low sed (lets say 7th) is able to take down a good one (2nd) let him play in that bracket. btw dust2 is a old but good map :p
2012-05-20 02:02
nice article
2012-05-19 20:58
nice article but i don't really like that kind .. i think it can make group stages much more interesting like they are now on some tournaments.. as you wrote noone likes that kind of free wins or if brackets are anounced and teams know if they would loose they would get "lower" enemy.. what i don't like is the reseeding thing.. because in my opinion if team with number 8 seeding knocks out team with no. 1 than that team kinda deserves to play againist lower oponents because they knocked out really solid team.. in this case of re-seeding it would make almost impossible for team with seeding 8 to get into finals.. howgh
2012-05-19 21:06
i just read it all and i can't disagree with anything
2012-05-19 21:10
I agree only with the group stage(maybe neither this)..the other no.
2012-05-19 21:11
Read it, didn't understand all of it (I never payed much attention to the pre-X*-finals stuff). But I'm sure you know better than anyone, so +1 *(quarter-semi-grand)
2012-05-19 21:23
I agree as well, tournaments should take into consideration a change.
2012-05-19 21:37
nice..
2012-05-19 21:44
nice!
2012-05-19 21:56
thats pretty cool format
2012-05-19 21:58
knife round and group stage yes :P
2012-05-19 22:05
Very thoughtful from Lurrpis and the best system out there Definitely,I myself highly recommend its use.
2012-05-19 22:07
very interesting read. I totally agree with the group stage thing.
2012-05-19 22:09
I don't agree with everything you say, esp not the group stage, you don't play all matches that way, it would not be the first time that after 2 matches the last one defeats the first one upsetting the first one going to 2nd place in that group and so facing a tougher opponent.. in this format you wouldn't have that anymore.. it doesn't always end up in a threeway tie, it oftens ends up in a duo tie for 1st place (which is sometimes more interesting) where the 1 of the 2 won from the other one but lost from one of the 2 'worse' teams, as the other one lost from the first one but won against the 2 'worse' teams.. that you wouldn't have either tho it's interesting.. about the other stuff I should rethink a bit, can't find arguements right now, and there might not be any, but the groupstage I know is not good as you say it, tho I don't think it's the best as it is right now.. btw I like the thinking behind how much rounds you need to win and keeping track of the different scores and who needs how many points to make sure the other one won't make it and so on and so on. I do respect your post and think it's nice you put this time into CS 1.6 and I will support, but I got to give my opinion about this and this is it, I would like to see your answer on this post ;)
2012-05-19 22:14
Counter-Strike 1.6 has been here for like how long?? And today 2012-05-19 19:57 we get to the point where it needs to be changed!!!
2012-05-19 22:16
Summary for people who can't read. 1. get rid of ties in group stages to prevent up to 3 way ties occurring. 2. a win is a win, round-difference does not mean anything (boosts the importance of winning a match, and thus the match itself - even in the group stages) 2B. In combination with rule one, Rule #2 will prevent teams from either A) purposely losing the match or B) purposely losing X amount of rounds. Both of these tactics are used by teams to hinder the advancement of other teams in the group stage or to avoid teams in the future. eX: mouz v lions 3. BO3 in Upper Bracket always. 3B. Bo3 in Lower bracket if possible. 4. No problems with current map picking system 5. Re-seed after each round of the playoffs, ex: RO16 -> re-seed, RO8 -> re-seed, RO4 allows high-seeded teams to be rewarded for meeting what has been expected of them, as well as prevents people from purposely missing a team.. say in a rare occasion where someone would prefer to go to the lower bracket earlier than later. (a weird concept to understand, not to mention extremely rare)
2012-05-19 22:58
It's a nice idea but I think teams seeded as low won't agree cos if we see the group stage for team D they only played 2 matches. If we suppose a low seeded team travels X thousand miles to play a tournament they'll only play 2 matches instead of 3
2012-05-19 23:25
3 replies
Group stage (example): Team A - SK (high seed, 1st on last tournament) Team B - kerchNET (unranked seed) Team C - ESC (medium seed, 7-8th on last tournament) Team D - DTS (low seed, 12th on last tournamnet) SK vs. DTS = SK ESC vs. kerchNET = ESC SK vs. ESC - decider for 1st place = SK DTS vs. kerchNET - decider for 4th place = eSahara ESC vs. DTS - decider for 2nd place = DTS SK - 1st easy won DTS - 2nd big surprise! but match was intense score about 19:17 ESC - 3rd OUT! sad for us kerchNET - 4th OUT! No ties and bad round difference, overtime 5 rounds. kerchNET only 2 matches but it's their problem because they were playing with medium seed team not high seed. Map selection and picking sides are really good ideas too.
2012-05-20 02:11
2 replies
DTS vs. kerchNET - decider for 4th place = eSahara?
2012-05-20 07:37
1 reply
:D should be kerchNET.
2012-05-20 12:43
As a tournament organizer, (hltv.org/?pageid=154&galleryid=4125&pict.. hello lurppis :p), I find this kind of article interesting, and have to admit I'm nicely surprised to see such reflexion. My 2 cents : The 30 rounds thing have been removed from a majority of tournaments, and it's a good step. The reason it has stayed for so long is that it was commonly -wrongly- believed that more rounds brought more granularity, thus allowing to avoid threeway ties. But history has shown that it's wrong (mainly because of the last rounds chilling issue). I totally value the fact of removing draws in group stages. Overtimes would be a good idea. But I'd rather keep the scores. After all, that gives an idea of the teams level. If team A raped team C, they deserve the right to be ranked at a higher position than team B which won 16 14 vs C. But you're going to bring the fact that it's BO1 and that map matters, and that the outcome is too random. Yeah, not perfect. Most of the sports world cups use the goal average system, it has to be for a reason to me. "I also think randomly drawing brackets is a completely acceptable way of doing it" Wowowo, I am puzzled to read this from a player. I guess you think this because you haven't played a random bracket for years :) Players used to complain sooo much about it back in the days. Each time I tried it I got loads of bitching. A team finishing first in its group should benefit from this spot. Besides, we don't want to see spoiled tournaments because a final-like matchup has been drawned in quarter finals. It already happens sometimes when a big team doesn't secure the first place in a group, and yet it's whiny enough. But at least in this situation, people can go "ow that's because team XYZ finished 2nd in their group", better than "sorry, the draw is shit" isn't it ? "Lastly, I think re-seeding teams before the bracket stage would be a good idea. This would have to be based on finishing first or second in the group" Perhaps I misunderstood, but I believe this is already the case in many tournament, with brackets like ; 1st Group A vs 2nd Group B 1st Group D vs 2nd Group D -- 2st Group D vs 1nd Group C 2st Group A vs 1st Group B "The main advantage of re-seeding is that a low seed can not steal a top seeded team's path in the bracket by a single upset win, and it would therefore award teams with long standing history of good placings and solid play" This has been widely subject to debate in the past. It can be summarized as 'Should a good team slightly underperforming in group stages be penalized after ?' In my opinion, tournaments are a single stand-in, a single event, if one big team finished 2nd in a group, because it underperformed or because another team made a push (that all depends on the point of view), that's it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying big teams don't deserve some advantages because of their past results, but that's why seeds have been introduced. Top level teams are already benefiting from the seeding, they don't meet too many big opponents in the groupstage. Your suggestion results in favouring top seeded teams a second time, which is too much imho. About the bracket manipulation thing, one has to admit that given the number of tournaments held, the amount of such -successful- manipulations is very low. Let me insist on the "successful" point. During my career I haven't seen so many manipulations, but in the few ones, teams ended up screwed sooo many times. Because things didn't go the way they thought, because they counted wrong etc etc This counting thing is by the way a real pain in the neck. Tournaments not being able to determine a global standard way of ranking tied teams in a group is really something that bothers me. Goal average, particular goal average, which one to take into account first ? Nobody agreed. There is one point you underlined that is very important to me though. The order matches are being played in groupstages. I see too often tournaments with top seeds matches, likely to be the first-place decider one, played in first. But again, played last, bracket manipulation would be more likely to occur. Double bracket BO3 is the best, but let's be realistic, not enough time ;) All it proves is that choosing a structure is really a matter of global coherence from one stage to another.
2012-05-19 23:43
13 replies
#88
 | 
United States lurppis
forcing teams to play overtimes rather than have the possibility to end in a tie (and then only counting rounds up to 15-15) would be an improvement to the current system, although i still prefer what in included in the article. cs can't be compared to most sports because all teams don't play the same maps, which affects round difference. if you think my teams haven't picked a certain map to try to start on the favored side in order to score a better round difference when needed, you'd be wrong. it's dumb that you can manipulate it like that. even in randomly drawing brackets, obviously group winners could never meet other group winners in the opening round - you draw matchups where #1 of a group meets #2 and so on, without being able to play the team from their original group. it's much better than pre-determining it, which basically gives the tournament a choice to decide how the event will end up. tournaments are a single event and i understand your point completely, but i think we need to try to move away from it. it would be a lot of power in a few people's hands, but i'm sure big events could gather a group of experts or people not involved with the event (e.g. people like me) to help with seedings. i think re-seeding is important more because of the spectators, not because of the players - single elimination brackets (which, as you said, will no matter what be how 90% of tournies end up because of time constraints) are simply too boring because you instantly know what teams will (possibly) matchup somewhere with no variance in the upcoming rounds. i appreciate the comment, you brought up some good points.
2012-05-20 00:33
didn't read LOL
2012-05-20 00:39
1 reply
unbalanced maps can lead to odd scores. 16-3 on train doesn't really means how good a team is. the idea of disconsider the round difference is weird because we never see this, but i think is a good move. being kicked of a group because you didn't rape NOOBSMIX enough is sad. and +1337 about re-seeding, seems unfair indeed (although i would rather to see it, as spectator)
2012-05-20 04:11
7 replies
#169
 | 
United States lurppis
like i mentioned, the re-seeding would be there more for the spectators than for players. brackets are simply too boring most of the time after seeing the opening round.
2012-05-20 17:19
6 replies
sure, i was just saying that i would rather the boring-but-fairest seeding
2012-05-20 18:50
5 replies
#176
 | 
United States lurppis
not sure how it's any more fair, i think it's unfair a team can get one lucky win in group stage, place first in group and get a lucky bracket draw for the first 2 rounds. similarly, i don't like how the low seed can get lucky vs a top team once and then avoid all the other top teams until the very end.
2012-05-20 20:26
4 replies
you've got a point, but i think high-seeds should play harder on groupstage, then. with re-seeding, if you're low-seeded you've to win "all" top teams... lower teams might not attend because of this, imo. the only change that should happen at this point, for me, is the randomly drawed brackect (featuring #1 vs #2 ofc), as you said
2012-05-20 20:48
3 replies
#179
 | 
United States lurppis
i don't see why everyone wants the best teams to get the hardest routes, why would anyone want to be the best then? surely everyone's goal should be to get low seeds then. if lower teams do not wish to attend because of not being good enough we can just close down cs as a competitive game because that means we only have people with loser's mentalities playing. i assume your "at this point" comment is meant due to cs 1.6 being on its way out in the next months to be replaced by cs:go (most likely) - these updates work for any game similar to cs in formats, whether it's cs 1.6, promod or cs:go.
2012-05-20 20:55
2 replies
ignore my #178 because you completely misunderstood. i'll try to rephrase it: TOP 1 in each group usually gets easier brackets. if the TOP 1 is a low-seeded team, he already defeated a high-seed, he deserves an easier way to the finals. if you re-seed, a high-seeded will face low-seed at groupstage AND playoffs, they won't have any problems until the semis (even if they lose against a low-seed @groupstage), and that would leave the groupstage really boring imo by "at this point" i meant the playoffs, sorry
2012-05-20 21:06
1 reply
#184
 | 
United States lurppis
when you re-seed after group stage (in this case let's assume there will be four groups with a total of eight teams advancing to playoffs), all the group winners will be seeds 1-4 while second placing teams will be 5-8. a "better team" who placed second in groups can not get a better seed than a team that won the group.
2012-05-20 21:10
About the 30 rounds you are wrong my friend. It was never a problem of granularity, it was a problem of equity of the maps. For instance if you play d2 and start T and have a strong T side, you may win 16-2 (13-2 3-0 with GR as CT) while the game could have been a 18-12 if you started CT. Playing the 30 rounds mean that if the other teams are playing on, say, inferno (which is alot more balanced) you don't have an edge. Many teams were rejecting imbalanced maps (d2, train) in the group stages for that matter. As for the Lurpis idea, it's the GSL in Starcraft and it's basically a winner/loser bracket format where you don't play the final. If you take the last Code S competition, the graphic is clear, simple and you can resume it in 4 sentences. The idea is great though, to bad CS is dead now :-) Finally, the bracket format. Winner/Loser bracket has the huge drawback to favor (a lot) the high seeded teams. Because fatigue is involved. No wonder why CPL never showed any suprise (SK SK SK SK) while it took them years to win ESWC (which has been both in bo1 and bo3 format).
2012-07-05 01:26
1 reply
Digging old articles ? :)) Hmm yeah in the end I think you're right about map balancing when just playing MR+1. It has even more weight than extra countable rounds for goal average. But what's surprising then is, why do players have been complaining after a few seasons and asked about not playing the remaining rounds. I guess they were too bored of low level group stages, but that would cost them on harder competitions. Tournaments should have then chosen between 16 or 30 depending on the competition level/importance.
2012-07-05 16:09
It is just silly, IMO.
2012-05-19 23:56
lurppis troll...
2012-05-20 00:12
I like it. It should've been like this a long time ago.
2012-05-20 00:21
king of the hill kniferound pls
2012-05-20 00:36
nice article tommi, definitely worth considering
2012-05-20 00:45
loved the playoffed-groupstage idea. about picking maps, i'd rather this way: every team has a ordered list of preferencial maps, like: Team A: 1. dust2 (+5) 2. inferno (+4) 3. train (+3) 4. nuke (+2) 5. tuscan (+1) Team B: 1. inferno (+5) 2. tuscan (+4) 3. train (+3) 4. dust2 (+2) 5. nuke (+1) inferno = 9 dust2 = 7 train = 6 tuscan = 5 nuke = 3 bo1 = inferno bo3 = inferno, dust2, and train if necessary in case of tie, prefence goes for the lower-seeded. that's actually similar to removing-maps system, but it takes off the complication of setting this with both teams. you just need them to rank all maps. also you aren't allowed to know how your opponents ranked their maps, which imo is not good for competitive game because it allows lower teams to upset by working on their enemies' weakness only. and could you explain me that part better? "at which point each team picks their own map" very good job :) edit: +1337 about knife rounds and keeping them on ground
2012-05-20 01:18
10 replies
#105
 | 
United States lurppis
actually a solid idea for picking maps, although it can be slightly confusing but not too bad. i'm not sure how to explain it better; it means both teams pick a map at that point in time.
2012-05-20 01:40
2 replies
i'm asking because if they know "that the last map remaining, is actually played first, and the loser's map always follows after.", they would choose the map based on that.
2012-05-20 01:49
1 reply
#107
 | 
United States lurppis
of course, and that is the whole point of the setup - both teams CAN strategize around that fact.
2012-05-20 01:49
#114
 | 
Finland FRGVN
I really like this idea.. did you mean them to be ranked on each matchup or just once before the tournament starts? imo would be better if it would be before the tournament.
2012-05-20 02:11
2 replies
Before group draw it will be the best idea :)
2012-05-20 02:20
that's another point to discuss, and i'm with you, they should rank it only one time, and that would be before the tournament
2012-05-20 03:41
Really good idea, maybe even better than this one what lurppis wrote :)
2012-05-20 02:16
its a good idea, but then forge would never be played anymore, ever.
2012-05-20 04:35
1 reply
actually, i think it would be more played, since they can't ban forge, just rank it badly it would be* a good chance for lower teams to practice it hard and rank as #1
2012-05-20 05:12
nice idea dude...
2012-07-24 05:53
#99
 | 
Azerbaijan Talley
Fully agreed on sides and group stage
2012-05-20 01:31
#100
 | 
Azerbaijan Talley
But what about groups with 3 or 5 teams?
2012-05-20 01:32
1 reply
imo group with 3 teams should go like: #2seeded vs #3seeded (bo3) #winner vs #1seede (bo3) in 5 team-groups ties are more unlikely
2012-05-20 01:36
#110
 | 
Thailand hahahoha
i need u for my essay....
2012-05-20 02:04
Good ideas about group stage, map selection and picking sides, with bracket play You should show us some example like this one for group stage. Group stage (example): Team A - SK (high seed, 1st on last tournament) Team B - kerchNET (unranked seed) Team C - ESC (medium seed, 7-8th on last tournament) Team D - DTS (low seed, 12th on last tournamnet) Team A vs. Team D = SK Team C vs. Team B = ESC SK vs. ESC - decider for 1st place = SK DTS vs. kerchNET - decider for 4th place = kerchNET ESC vs. DTS - decider for 2nd place = DTS SK - 1st easy won DTS - 2nd big surprise! but match was intense score about 19:17 ESC - 3rd OUT! kerchNET - 4th OUT! No ties and bad round difference, overtime 5 rounds. kerchNET only 2 matches but it's their problem because they were playing with medium seed not high seed team.
2012-05-20 02:10
mhm yes i read all post phha
2012-05-20 02:19
the proposal for group stage is perfect
2012-05-20 02:23
nice Idea's, here i've played the wrap up and it's perfect, exciting and you have a lot of possibilities. I hope this year the upcoming tournaments join this sistem.. GJ
2012-05-20 02:28
not really you have to read the whole thing to understand the point just SK Gaming vs eSAHARA
2012-05-20 08:38
me gusta
2012-05-20 10:08
Wow, Thts a lotta words :/ The last pic kinda explained itself out..
2012-05-20 11:10
DID READ LOL
2012-05-20 11:17
It's ok I guess, but for something like this, official rankings should be established, as you can't just seed whoever you want however you want. Would be too biased I guess. As we all know official ranking can't be established that easily, this system shouldn't be used any time soon.
2012-05-20 11:24
WCG groups, also i see wcg grous Panel in a screenshot xd His method is good, more matches.
2012-05-20 11:48
gave it a quick look over and would like to see this given a shot :3
2012-05-20 12:02
I really like the group stage idea, and overall I think it would be really good, but there are 2 problems i can see with it: 1. The biggest flaw is it only works for groups of 4. In bigger tournaments like WCG (with 5-6 teams per group), or smaller 2-group tournaments like IEM it wouldnt be anywhere near as good and require byes and just become a mess. 2. Lower tier teams already arent getting enough experience in tournaments against the best teams in the world as is. This will lower the amount of maps 'bad' teams play from a minimum of 3 (in a 4-team group) to most likely 2, and teams will be less likely to go to the effort to travel overseas for less and less play-time... aswell as getting less experience while playing a tournament and increasing the gap between the top tier teams. I also really agree with everything to do with: * map selections (the proposed picking method sounds great) * picking sides (knife round is best - perhaps even just a very simple flat aim map or something that is a mirror-image for both teams could be used to eliminate height/terrain advantages etc) * bracket play (double elim is clearly superior, but bo3 is must-have. Bo3 double-elim is the best possible format, but if time doesnt permit it then bo3 single elim is best)
2012-05-20 12:09
wanted to read it but nope. chuck testa.
2012-05-20 12:31
That "new" system is what that have been used in GSL SC2 for a long time...
2012-05-20 13:38
1 reply
#168
 | 
United States lurppis
never claimed i invented it, i even specifically stated that a friend of mine told me it's used in some starcraft tournaments.
2012-05-20 17:18
My organisation is planning a CS Tournament soon and we would not use this method at all... We would use, 4 groups, top 2 go through then randomised draws for the next rounds up to the final... Easy, Simple and a lot less chaos...
2012-05-20 14:15
3 replies
#167
 | 
United States lurppis
not sure how this is in any case chaotic but you're free to do as you please. basically you just want to use a group stage that takes you longer to finish and is likely to cause more delays (and possible threeway ties, and with that, drama) and then what i suggested apart from re-seeding in the playoffs.
2012-05-20 17:17
1 reply
I do see where you are coming from I suppose, i just duno if people will warm to your idea...
2012-05-20 18:16
Sorry bro but your "organisation" is fucking terrible and your "cs-team" is too. No one wants to play your shitty tournament and no one cares if you use this method or not because no one knows that there actually is a "organisation" called Daphon. I prefer you to shut down your "organisation".
2012-06-01 04:26
that group stage thing looks like a small double elimination bracket without final... I personally really liked the playoff bracket at copenhagen games with an upper bracket with bo3 for the favorites to go through and and a random bo1 lower bracket for possible upsets and surprises, but on the other hand I wasn't a friend of a possible one map final. maybe a bo5 with a one map advantage for the team coming from the upper bracket would solve the problem :D I also really like the idea of a king of the hill kniferound, we would get rid off the chaotic kniferounds and it would be a lot easier to follow from a specatator's point of view. I was even thinking about using a king of the hill kniferound as something like a penalty shootout after a few overtimes. Yeah, it would be random, but after drawing the game and the overtimes you can say the teams are pretty equal (at least in that game), so why not decide the game in some really intense moment (and it would prevent endless games with a bunch of overtimes). Well, it's just an idea.
2012-05-20 14:30
7 replies
#166
 | 
United States lurppis
i think the bo3 upper bracket and bo1 lower bracket setup is terrible for teams, it just promotes randomness in cs which should not be something we want. no one wants to see esc gaming go out at 9-12th place vs anexis because it was a best-of-one. best-of-five is too much cs from my experience, you get really tired of playing (since it's never the only cs you'll play that day) and it's hard to remain focused for up to 4-5 hours without a break longer than a few minutes. i think a knife overtime is a bad idea, once again, we want the best team to win. in the nhl for example, penalty shots are only used in the regular season, playoffs use regular sudden death overtime as long as it takes - as it should be.
2012-05-20 17:15
6 replies
Yeah, I guess as a part of one of the best professional teams I wouldn't support randomness aswell, it might be a little desaster for a team like esc to put so much time into a game and finish only 9th-12th. But from a spectator point of view I'm really tired of always seeing the same teams on top of every single tournament. I mentioned the bracket system of copenhagen games, because I really enjoyed watching that tournament, it was really refreshing to see winfakt and lemondogs perform better than sk an esc. Imo it was a good mix between giving the best teams a chance to get to the final in bo3 and the weaker teams to upset the bigger ones and maybe even compete for the first place. Actually the lower bracket was just an additional chance to win the trophy, esc would have been out in the quarter finals in a single elimination bo3 mode. I don't think the knife overtime is that bad. As I told it has probably the potential to be some kind of exciting deciding moment. If you play two regular overtimes followed by a knife overtime, for example on copenhagen games only 1 map out of 152 would have been decided by that rule. Maybe it even makes the team to risk something to force a victory in the regular overtime. After drawing two overtimes the smallest thing could decide on the outcome of the game, so I would not necessarily say, that the better team wins, it's also a lot about luck the regular way. But since I never observed a game decided by such a knife rule, I can't say, how enjoyable it would be. Probably our views are too different, but for me as spectator I like to see a big field of contenders for the podium. Why following a cs tournament, when you always see navi vs sk, esc vs sk or navi vs esc at the end? I don't want to convince you, just to give the other side a thought.
2012-05-20 20:00
5 replies
#177
 | 
United States lurppis
the mindset of teams such as esc is totally different knowing they will be out of a tournament versus just dropping to lower bracket, i think there is a solid chance they would have beaten fnatic if that series was do or die - it would have surely made them want to work around their arguments more. copenhagen games' random results were 80% due to the event being byoc which favored a bunch of teams using crt monitors (fnatic) or just playing a ton of csdm etc which you normally couldn't (i assume winfakt falls under this category based on knowing them), leading to much above average individual performances (aslak). it may be just one map out of 152, but it's THE most important map of the 152, by far. if you don't enjoy two teams battling it out, maybe you just don't enjoy watching top teams in CS play the way some of us do. personally i think that is an absolutely terrible idea (as was the one round OT used by CGS). the better team has to win, and knifing doesn't have anywhere near enough to do with CS to potentially determine the winner of a tournament. why do i follow it? because i WANT to see the top teams play in the final. for example when fnatic and lions made finals of dreamhack winter 2011, i didn't even watch most of the final because it simply wasn't an interesting match up. i want to see sk, na`vi and esc go head to head as many times as possible, because they ARE the best teams. by your logic you must not enjoy watching most sports in the world, as most have overwhelming favorites that more often than not make it far in tournaments. bottom line: i want to see the best teams play each other at their peak, not lower caliber teams that lucked out at the right moment of a lower bracket in best-of-one.
2012-05-20 20:33
4 replies
I just think it's vital for a sports scene to have a lot of contenders from different countries, I like to see new faces and different playstyles, but that does not make me not enjoy top matches. One thing doesn't rule out the other.
2012-05-20 21:05
3 replies
#183
 | 
United States lurppis
but then all you have to do is learn to enjoy games like cs:go where the skill gap is a lot lower so more teams can beat each other and then you have more contenders, and you will be perfectly happy! no? cs scene has been just fine for years and years, whether two more countries have a team that can get a lucky win in best-of-one won't make any difference in the scene
2012-05-20 21:09
2 replies
I don't know, all I know is, that I personally get less entertained by cs than before. Maybe you're right and I should move to cs:go.
2012-05-20 21:23
1 reply
#186
 | 
United States lurppis
i get less entertained by cs as well, but i don't blame same teams winning or new maps not existing for it. people change all the time, some of my best friends who played hockey for years are now die hard soccer fans and vice versa. the problem with counter-strike is that it's not bringing in new players at all, period, so trying to keep the current players in shouldn't be a priority. as i mentioned elsewhere in the comments, these formats can also be used in cs:promod or cs:go in the future, where the player base should not be a problem.
2012-05-20 21:25
#158
 | 
France gOrdiii
Group stage : I like this new "GSL" format. Every game matters and quite easy to understand. And the format we are currently using is based on normal sports like football, basketball, etc. But CS is a point-based game, not a time-based game, which a big difference. If you look at tennis, another point-based game, there's no pool play in tennis, just a huge bracket. So let's go for the GSL format. Bracket draw : I think the best one is/(was?, note sure) used for ESWC. Two pools : 1st and 2nd, random draw, 1st can only play a 2nd. Almost perfect in my opinion. I'm with you for map picking and sides picking (KNIFE§!§).
2012-05-20 14:33
1 reply
ESWC brackets were not random. Used the oldie-but-goodie cyberleagues algorithm. Knife Round is really the best option. But bear in mind that it takes time (which is a scarce resource in tourneys). It's mostly only possible if you have the appropriate tool to roll it out automatically (many organizations don't). Otherwise one would have to chase teams indefinitely, that would require either a ridiculous amount of time, or admins. I like the map selection proposed, random is out, and at least I won't have to look stupid throwing a coin anymore :D I thought about tennis brackets too when reading the article, but thing is, these brackets are seeded, they are filled in based on the ATP ranking, which is really representative. We don't have such official ranking. Plus, in tennis high seeds are dispensed with first rounds.
2012-05-20 15:57
thats one hell of an article..
2012-05-20 14:38
Why have overtimes when you can have a score of 16-15.
2012-05-20 19:23
2 replies
#180
 | 
United States lurppis
a match can not end 16-15 with max rounds 15, or any other max round setting for that matter, without overtime.
2012-05-20 20:56
#195
tHm | 
Denmark tHm
Lurppis said it, but I would like to go a little deaper with it. You basicly NEED the overtime in order to maintain the fairness. Like on de_train, if you are CT and you get an extra easy round to win. An other example is, if your team are on a roll, like when you are doing a comeback, and you have the money control aswell. A lot of factors plays in, at its important that both sides has equal money and oppitunity to play the same ammount of rounds on each side.
2012-05-21 05:03
someone can tell me why Lurppis leave WinFakt ? :(
2012-05-20 21:26
Nice article Lurp. Definitely will put some of those thoughts in practice at my next event, specially the groups stage.
2012-05-21 00:31
IEM still hurts! feel u bro
2012-05-21 01:10
2 replies
#193
 | 
United States lurppis
had to actually think back to figure out which iem you meant, didn't connect it to this year's event because our mentality was that we needed to beat either esahara or lions to advance, and didn't. it's much worse when you win your last match, but still don't advance (beat mouz 16-5 at iem 3 wc, dropped out on rounds).
2012-05-21 02:33
1 reply
yea that was pretty unlucky. not losin a single match n still goin out. pretty sad. but i agree that SOMETHING needs 2 b done to improve the way tournaments work in a more efficient way. hope this would open the eyes of the organizers. peace out
2012-05-21 14:39
Very nice thinking, would love to see it happening!
2012-05-21 01:26
#194
 | 
Greece her-1g
wow i'm thrilled that noone even read this!! its actually a format based on logic and not in "randomness" . I would do it like the Champions League Format as i found it good and re seed at the semi's. anyway very nice read i kinda enjoyed it.
2012-05-21 02:35
LOL , i never clicked an HLTV article where i wanted to type , 1st time for everything TL , DR
2012-05-21 07:15
4 replies
#197
 | 
United States lurppis
your one thousand, four hundred and eighty-three (1483) comments beg to differ, sir.
2012-05-21 09:31
3 replies
Hello wanna play mix? i am currently trying to find the best semi elites.
2012-05-21 13:44
2 replies
#200
 | 
United States lurppis
i am not currently active in cs and even when i am, i only play with my friends. sorry.
2012-05-21 14:01
1 reply
Ok because i thought you were my friend :S
2012-05-21 15:58
good idea!
2012-05-21 16:55
In general this is a good idea. But I rly don't like the re-seeding. I think that is unfair 'cause it only privileges the best teams.
2012-05-21 17:30
map pick and side choose must be random, else you'll see the same think what happened in e-stars 2011, wmf played 3 times inferno(their map). LoL.
2012-05-21 18:43
#209
 | 
Ukraine tereza
post writers... it looks like hltv.org/?pageid=154&galleryid=4880&pict..
2012-05-21 22:00
1st: Love your group stage system. 2nd: I never really liked the bracket style I would be more for a multiple succesion of group stages. Let me elaborate: Groups A to H (8 groups = 32 players) New Group A: 1st.Match: 1st Group A vs 2nd Group B 2nd.Match: 1st Group C vs 2nd Group D New Group B: 1st.Match: 1st Group E vs 2nd Group F 2nd.Match: 1st Group G vs 2nd Group H and we would have 4 groups like this. Then we would have 2 new groups. Newest Group A: 1st.Match: 1st NewGroupA vs 2nd NewGroupB etc,etc.. and after this we would have a final group made in the same way. Thought this way there wouldn't be twice the same match until the final and each team would have more opportunities to enter the final group and each team in the final group would have more chances to be at 2nd place. More chances = Better winners
2012-05-21 23:06
1 reply
+1
2012-06-08 13:18
too long didn't read lurppis is awful in general @ everything he has ever done pz
2012-05-22 01:14
1 reply
lurppis leaded _ALL_ #1 .fi teams sofar, finland doesnt have the same skill-lvl-players like they had in the past. u can't blame him for this, why do u think he lost motivation.. actually iam glad he finally realized it. imo lurppis played last years under his lvl.
2012-05-22 11:25
get booted from a team, create a new tournament format. tl:dr
2012-05-22 01:19
I found a new tournament site @ spelfronten! Looks really amazing by far :) Be a member if you want to support: www.spelfronten.se/index.php?site=register&refer=794
2012-05-22 02:38
2 replies
Hahhakjaja, "I found".... Yeah fucking right you dumb fuck. Stop acting like you're giving us a friendly advice and admit you're just advertising :-) the other shit's just pathetic
2012-05-25 15:32
1 reply
Stop acting like you're cool, if you don't want to click, don't do it. Simple as that?
2012-05-25 15:45
nice read :D keep going :D you will focus in articles now? no more cs playing?
2012-05-23 03:29
Good idea lurppis
2012-05-23 08:50
Great post lurppis! Looking forward to seeing if any tournament will follow this guide!
2012-05-25 21:51
if the ideas you present are so simple -- then why so much text?
2012-05-25 21:53
1 reply
#254
 | 
United States lurppis
not a very smart argument considering it all can be explained with these two pictures and the very little text on them: hltv.org/?pageid=154&galleryid=1693&pict.. hltv.org/?pageid=154&galleryid=1693&pict.. most of the text (which i'm sure you didn't read) is to explain why these changes are better - which is obviously the most important part about this article to anyone considering these changes as an event organizer.
2012-06-02 23:32
lets hope that with this system winfakt wins a tournament.
2012-05-26 20:10
with you 100% on the group stage format ! not sure about the re-seeding thing but yes group stage thing actually makes a lot of sense ! I simply dont understand why people are giving negative comments to this post? Maybe they dint go through the entire post but yes its, not a word extra, not a word less. Very Precise to say the least !
2012-05-27 02:20
#245
 | 
Macedonia EXTOL[t]
Sk vs ENTITY eSAHARA VS ENTITY :D:D:D
2012-05-28 15:20
Good Idea !
2012-05-28 17:15
i like it
2012-05-28 17:50
A well-known and respected player makes some good suggestions for improving tournaments and all he gets is a wash of trolls who can't read. Here's some advice for you lurppis - just give up on this community and save yourself the headache. The only way this game is worth saving is if you remove the community from it.
2012-05-29 09:16
Nice reading! Too bad 70% of the hltv.org users are so narrow-minded and stupid that they can't appreciate an article of this caliber regarding the game they all love - cs. This seems to be a very thought-out format that at least should be tested by the tournament-organisers/admins. Can't say I think it will be tested though. The perception I have of admins/organisers is that they don't generally like to make changes (same mentality as the most users of this site) but it would be really good for the scene. I've always admired the seeding-system the NHL uses, would be really fun to see it in cs. :) As always, great work lurppis. Keep it up!
2012-05-30 04:01
16 rounds take and take the match also , why 30? o.O , players gonna sleep on their keyboard !
2012-06-02 23:58
stream of plays ?
2012-06-04 04:20
lurppis, regarding to the seeding and re-seeding process, some communities, like the portuguese, must find that sometimes, the seeding made by the organization, for example on xFRAGcup, and I'm not talking by myself cause I think they were fine, were a bit unfair. How do we manage to deal with this? Cause then one team thinks that is better than the other, when the other is on higher seed. Here in Portugal is very hard to seed cause teams are always changing. Questions were asked like "Why the hell TEAM A is on the lower seed and TEAM B on medium?". We don't know what was the data used to seed. Ofc in major events, like IEM, DH, ESWC, this seeding process would be great.
2012-06-08 13:16
plz lurppis
2012-06-09 05:52
C/P from the sukitRon interview. The problem, as I see it, is going to be the two more average teams playing twice, but the first win not counting for anything. As we're seeing it now with 'zNation vs. paiN' and 'ENTiTY vs. Giants'. Here it would seem more fair if the winning team of the first round actually got some kind of advantage. Since they end up winning one game each, but the latter will always be the one to go through. Perhaps even a third map decided would be the most fair thing, but it's hard to say with pros and cons what would be the best way to handle it. Mostly because you can argue that the winning team of the first round already had an advantage in form of a chance of going through earlier on in the second round, whereas the losing team had the risk of going out in that round. But mostly it'll be a case of double matches which can often end up with both teams winning a map/match each, but only the latter to go to the playoffs. And what seems most unfair about this fact would be the more or less random luck of map-choice in the third round, which will often be the deciding factor in the closer games :/
2012-07-27 09:30
#265
 | 
France Sheld
re-seeding would ruin the dreamteam game
2013-05-03 19:10
I cannot believe how many people are complaining about the length of this article. If it's a good and informative article who cares how long it is? go read a F**king news paper once in a awhile.
2013-06-12 17:17
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.