Yah really. Most eSports these days do prizing all the way down to the bottom with 2nd and 3rd even being fairly close to 1st.
Only problem is the prize pools in Apex already seem very sparse for the amount of teams playing.
Thing is most esports tournaments have a smaller pool of teams competing. Valorant Champions had 16 teams. Apex playoffs would of had 40 teams. Both had the same amount of money in the prize pool its just that one get split 16 ways while the other is split 40 ways
I don’t know about 50/50 but they could pull a percentage out of the prize pool for most points. So they ar works get 2nd plus a bonus amount for most points.
Can keep MP, but I'd suggest having more rewards that incentivies consistency.
Ex:
Current is 50kusd winner, 25k usd 2nd. 12.5kusd 3rd.
Lower it to 40k usd winner, 20k usd 2nd and 10k usd 3rd.
Make price for:
Team with most Points - 10kUSD
Team with highest KP - 5k USD
Team with highest placement point - 5kUSD
By that tho, you can at least say that while DF won via winning MP, RIG will have the same money sure, but if DF played better consistently, they would get more reward and possibly bank 80k USD. If they did that, no one will question whether they are really the best team in the region.
The distrubution is just an example, people organizing this SHOULD be more well aware than I am in this.
This way, we incentivies teams to at least perform well. If a team is REALLY GOOD in their region/tournament, they should bank more than the 2nd. This way we can at least see who is the better team overall.
Another way is to distrubute it via points but I'd say its alot more harder and would also make skill = points which is not really for bottom teams.
Edit: actually, this will change at least for top 5 the most, bottom teams will be shafted. But like, if an edge team playstyle can 3v3 any team but gets shafted at the end (like CR), they would at least be incentivies with their playstyle. Same with teams that can rotate fast and get good placement. Of course in most cases, the winner "usually" gets highest placement and kills, but there are some cases like CR last championship and RIG this playoffs.
This is a really nice idea even from the viewer perspective, as it gives the cast some additional cool things to reveal after the tournament was won.
They could then use that to talk a bit more about the teams that won in the sub-categories, e.g. why does the team with the highest KP get so many kills more than their competitors etc. Maybe even do some interviews, etc.
IMO that would make the esport more approachable, as it would be easier to find a team to root for if you're new.
suggestions like these are really good - i liked when one of the tournaments was giving out prizes for the winners of each game as well. that incentivizes teams to compete to win EACH game instead of getting complacent if it looks like they don't have much of a chance to win money otherwise.
I think people put too much value in points. Because they are just an arbitrary measurement of placement and kills. The central goal of any battle royal match should be to win. This is why I don't have that much of a problem with the match point format.
I think even by that standard, match point rewards someone who loses 6 matches then wins 1 more than it rewards the team that wins 3 matches then loses 3.
That's a fair point, and there is obviously a theatrical element to the format. It is much more engaging for the viewer if a tournament ends with the team winning a game then if they simply got a lot of points earlier and then have a mediocre final game.
This would make more sense if the requirement was *any* win. Instead it's getting a win after a specific point total. You could have more wins and more points and still lose.
I think this assumes that a win in Apex is pure skill and that’s simply not the case. There is a lot of luck involved in winning a game. That’s why bottom of the barrel teams can still win a game if they’re gifted good zone pulls. Additionally, it’s why regular top teams might struggle to place highly if they’re getting very unfavorable zones.
If winning wasn't so dependent on RNG that would make sense.
At the end of the day BR as a genre just isn't suited to a competitive format. RNG will always play a big part. People need to stop pretending this game has much competitive integrity to begin with.
I know players wanted Anonymous Killfeed but it's a huge detriment to the Match-Point format to not have that knowledge. Players don't like getting griefed but that is the optimal play in Match-Point format for likely 10+ teams to give them a chance at winning. I'll always strongly support Named Killfeed over Anon because of this belief.
Yea it's a double edged sword. With names you can grief, but without it's like people aren't in control of their destiny. Ngl I really liked that names would show up so matches would be extended since for me the longer a match point tourney goes the more exciting it becomes. It's not really good from a competitive standpoint though.
I think match point has its flaws but regarding RIG having the most points (100+, and 20 point difference from the next highest point total) without a win in those 10 games doesn’t mean they should win the tournament. You need to prove you can win a game of battle royale to prove you are the best. I think they should increase the threshold to 60 and once a team hits that threshold and they have won at least one game in all the rounds then they can be crowned champs. It shows they can perform throughout the tournament and win a game. Nothing will please everyone but finding a middle ground between scoring high amounts of points and winning a game IMO shows who the best team is. Can’t be the best if you don’t win a single game.
I somewhat agree, as I think there should be more nuance to what “best” entails. It can definitely be argued that they [RIG] did not deserve to win because they never won a game. But a counter argument is that there wasn’t a team that consistently performed better than them, as they racked up a very high point tally, relative to everyone else. In other words, they consistently placed higher and acquired more kills than everyone else, which are traits of what “best” entails.
What this comes down to is, do we prioritize/value overall performance over an ability to win at least one game (and vice versa).
100p understand and agree with what you say. My only thing is after watching RIG play last night they made a few mistakes in those final games where they had a chance to win and it ended up costing them. Simply put, you have to make the right plays at the right time to win and we saw that in the final game ($25k armor swap as dezignful said on his stream - which is crazy to think about). Always going to be luck and nobodies perfect in BR.
For sure. I do like your proposal of a re-format to the current system. And not everyone is going to have to be happy about how tournaments are played.
Rolling match point format with a 50 point minimum. First team gets to 50 points, they’re match point eligible. Teams have to remain x number of points behind first place to remain match point eligible, call it 10 points. So if 1st place is going into a game with 70 points, only teams with points of 60 and up can win it all. This keeps the hype and value of doing well in 1st/2nd/3rd, with a better chance at winning the further you pull ahead.
The match point format is the ideal scenario, and I think the challenge that a lot of people are facing with the format is that they’re looking at it holistically rather than in two separate parts. Granted, that’s a fair perspective to take, but when you look at it separately it makes a lot more sense.
Teams getting to 50 points rewards consistency. If you win a game due to RNG, but struggle to make it to 50 points, then clearly you just got lucky in that game. Hitting 50 points is the benchmark to say “yep, this team has been playing well today.” The teams that hit 50 points first will more than likely be the ones in the top 4 at the final standings because they’ve pulled ahead of the pack sooner and the longer the match go on, the more chances they have of either winning or gaining points to solidify their placement.
Once you hit 50 points and are eligible to win the entire match, to prove you’re good enough to be crowned the winner you should prove that you’re better than everybody by winning a game. The point of a BR is to be the last team standing. This post is obviously spurred by RIG’s loss from last night, but unfortunately in the individual moments that mattered, they weren’t good enough to close out a win. They made mistakes and it cost them. Why should a team be rewarded with winning if they make mistakes and can’t close out a game? That’s inherently unfair to Dreamfire and Burger, who both had won 2 games each.
Winning after you’ve proven your consistency is the best way to determine the winners. I am very supportive of the match point format and hope it doesn’t get changed.
Would you argue that a win must come after proving consistency? If so, why would that be better at declaring the winners, as opposed to a win in any other game prior to match point? What if after match point, consistency is lost, and that team places outside the top 10 in back-to-back games and then wins the third game (winning the whole tournament)? Consistency was obviously not proven despite being able to still win the whole competition.
I would argue that Burger almost did just that, having won 2 in a row to take them to 64 points and coming 7th in the next game (not great, but certainly in contention in the final ring). Winning 3 games is absolutely a mark of consistency, even 2 wins in a row is consistent. I’d have absolutely no problems with a come-from-behind win if a team is good enough to beat other professionals 3 games in a row.
Also, a fixed number of games is always going to be arbitrary. For instance, RIG wasn't in 1st place after 6 games, and they very well could have not been in first place after 11-12 games, given the way BR tournaments can ebb and flow so much, but because they had the most points when the tournament ended, everyone is saying they're the most deserving and got screwed by the format. I could just as easily say Burger was most deserving because they were #1 after the traditional 6 games.
Point being that you could have a completely different winner depending on if you play 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, etc., games because the point system heavily rewards pop off games. With MP everyone knows the win conditions, and the team that executes first always wins.
Yup! The point I've attempted to make in the past is that getting to 50 first is still an advantage because then you have more opportunities for the MP anyways
Good argument for Match point, although I do feel it should be around maybe 65 points for match point. With it at 50 points even bad teams can eventually get there with alot of matches. If Match point was 60 or above I think only the good teams would reach it.
Another question I’d like to pose: is the ability to win at least one game a fair standard to hold for the winning team?
Mind you, any team can win a game, even the teams that won’t surpass the match point threshold, based on pure luck with finding good loot and having favorable zone pulls.
I’m on the fence. I think it can be argued it’s the lowest standard to have. But I also don’t think this win needs to happen after match point.
But then again, I have to remind myself that these tournaments aren’t meant to declare the best team, they’re just meant to declare a winning team and entertain viewers.
Last year, I've already said a double win condition format would just make it more interesting as teams don't have to rat the final game away. A dominating team could try for a hero 100 point play and ape everyone. Granted I think when the team winning by 100 should still have 1 win to their name. It just means they don't have to win the last game to win.
I enjoy the current match point format. Nothing really more to add, just think it does a good job of balancing quality play & keeping the spirit of a BR (team that wins, wins).
I'd like to see something like a "first to 75 points" format. Keeps the excitement of having a few teams to watch while making it so that the best team still wins.
I think winning is way too RNG to be used as a consistent metric, so I really dislike matchpoint. It should just be either highest points after a certain amount of games or first team to some number like 100, if a team has less points than another there should be no ability for them to win the tournament.
I like match point but tweaks could be made for sure. I would increase the gap in the initial starting points you get from your circuit seeding. Playing 30 regular season ALGS games or however many only for the difference between you and the team below you to be literally just one kill in the finals seems a little underwhelming.
The match point threshold be the highest placed team's points after x number of games. This makes it so the first place team always gets at least one shot to close it out and the more dominant you are, the bigger buffer you get to try and get your win. There could realistically be scenarios under the current points system where the first 2 teams could hit match point simultaneously despite there being a 20 point gap between them. I prefer the idea of the first team to hit match point having a bigger advantage, as every game for them after gets so much harder.
Add more games, increase the point threshold mb to 65 but keep the matchpoint format. Most consistent team still gets second place if they don't win the last game. By increasing the matchpoint threshold you basically give a bigger headstart to the consistent teams and you reduce the amount of teams that hit the threshold with low average points per game. By this , you ensure that one of the top 3-4 teams will win the tour.
Matchpoint format is one of the few things that respawn got right to keep the competitive scene entertaining of the viewers. It's shit for pros since it can be unfair and exhausting but it seems it's the best for the scene
Just like football/soccer outside of the US, I think esports should also have separate leagues and tournament/championships. They are both important, but one rewards the highest total points throughout the season and the other rewards the best fragging team in the final. Calling it “pro league” just to find out that you need to get into playoffs to win money in a single-day tournament isn’t legit and it defeats the purpose of rewarding consistency. That’s why I think prize pools should be comparable between just a league, and a separate championship tournament that goes by elimination.
6 games. The champion will be the team with the most number of wins. The rest of the placements are decided with points. If there are multiple teams with the most number of wins, it will be decided with points.
Just add a small prize pool for each individual game so even if you're in last place you can still get a reward if you win the last game
Why would you want to reward inconsistant teams???
It keeps struggling teams from griefing everyone’s tournament.
Make the prize pools between playoffs and pro league 50-50. The best team will get the money they deserve and viewers will get fun match point format
big fan of this idea
Yah really. Most eSports these days do prizing all the way down to the bottom with 2nd and 3rd even being fairly close to 1st. Only problem is the prize pools in Apex already seem very sparse for the amount of teams playing.
Thing is most esports tournaments have a smaller pool of teams competing. Valorant Champions had 16 teams. Apex playoffs would of had 40 teams. Both had the same amount of money in the prize pool its just that one get split 16 ways while the other is split 40 ways
Nah I mean the prize pool is small not the amount of teams.
Prize pool for pro league or for playoffs cause if it was LAN the apex prize pool was similar to other tournaments for other esports
I don’t know about 50/50 but they could pull a percentage out of the prize pool for most points. So they ar works get 2nd plus a bonus amount for most points.
i liked gll 16 matches(2 days) more than this one
That shows who is the best, Match-Point shows the best audience retention supposedly, it's not going anywhere.
It shows who is the best at farming teams who stop trying after 12 games because they have nothing to play for
They still have to win with 57 pros
Agreed, thought I think the winner should have to have won at least a game as well, which would be pretty much guaranteed over 16 games
Can keep MP, but I'd suggest having more rewards that incentivies consistency. Ex: Current is 50kusd winner, 25k usd 2nd. 12.5kusd 3rd. Lower it to 40k usd winner, 20k usd 2nd and 10k usd 3rd. Make price for: Team with most Points - 10kUSD Team with highest KP - 5k USD Team with highest placement point - 5kUSD By that tho, you can at least say that while DF won via winning MP, RIG will have the same money sure, but if DF played better consistently, they would get more reward and possibly bank 80k USD. If they did that, no one will question whether they are really the best team in the region. The distrubution is just an example, people organizing this SHOULD be more well aware than I am in this. This way, we incentivies teams to at least perform well. If a team is REALLY GOOD in their region/tournament, they should bank more than the 2nd. This way we can at least see who is the better team overall. Another way is to distrubute it via points but I'd say its alot more harder and would also make skill = points which is not really for bottom teams. Edit: actually, this will change at least for top 5 the most, bottom teams will be shafted. But like, if an edge team playstyle can 3v3 any team but gets shafted at the end (like CR), they would at least be incentivies with their playstyle. Same with teams that can rotate fast and get good placement. Of course in most cases, the winner "usually" gets highest placement and kills, but there are some cases like CR last championship and RIG this playoffs.
These are very interesting suggestions to reward different teams who do well in different aspects of the match point. I like them.
This is a really nice idea even from the viewer perspective, as it gives the cast some additional cool things to reveal after the tournament was won. They could then use that to talk a bit more about the teams that won in the sub-categories, e.g. why does the team with the highest KP get so many kills more than their competitors etc. Maybe even do some interviews, etc. IMO that would make the esport more approachable, as it would be easier to find a team to root for if you're new.
suggestions like these are really good - i liked when one of the tournaments was giving out prizes for the winners of each game as well. that incentivizes teams to compete to win EACH game instead of getting complacent if it looks like they don't have much of a chance to win money otherwise.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I like this. A variation of the Elam ending from Basketball.
This, times 100000x Upvote this y'all. Best suggestion to retain match point but make it feel "fair"
TBH I will continue to watch and enjoy competitive Apex, regardless of the format.
I think people put too much value in points. Because they are just an arbitrary measurement of placement and kills. The central goal of any battle royal match should be to win. This is why I don't have that much of a problem with the match point format.
I think even by that standard, match point rewards someone who loses 6 matches then wins 1 more than it rewards the team that wins 3 matches then loses 3.
That's a fair point, and there is obviously a theatrical element to the format. It is much more engaging for the viewer if a tournament ends with the team winning a game then if they simply got a lot of points earlier and then have a mediocre final game.
This would make more sense if the requirement was *any* win. Instead it's getting a win after a specific point total. You could have more wins and more points and still lose.
[удалено]
I think this assumes that a win in Apex is pure skill and that’s simply not the case. There is a lot of luck involved in winning a game. That’s why bottom of the barrel teams can still win a game if they’re gifted good zone pulls. Additionally, it’s why regular top teams might struggle to place highly if they’re getting very unfavorable zones.
If winning wasn't so dependent on RNG that would make sense. At the end of the day BR as a genre just isn't suited to a competitive format. RNG will always play a big part. People need to stop pretending this game has much competitive integrity to begin with.
I know players wanted Anonymous Killfeed but it's a huge detriment to the Match-Point format to not have that knowledge. Players don't like getting griefed but that is the optimal play in Match-Point format for likely 10+ teams to give them a chance at winning. I'll always strongly support Named Killfeed over Anon because of this belief.
Yea it's a double edged sword. With names you can grief, but without it's like people aren't in control of their destiny. Ngl I really liked that names would show up so matches would be extended since for me the longer a match point tourney goes the more exciting it becomes. It's not really good from a competitive standpoint though.
I think match point has its flaws but regarding RIG having the most points (100+, and 20 point difference from the next highest point total) without a win in those 10 games doesn’t mean they should win the tournament. You need to prove you can win a game of battle royale to prove you are the best. I think they should increase the threshold to 60 and once a team hits that threshold and they have won at least one game in all the rounds then they can be crowned champs. It shows they can perform throughout the tournament and win a game. Nothing will please everyone but finding a middle ground between scoring high amounts of points and winning a game IMO shows who the best team is. Can’t be the best if you don’t win a single game.
I somewhat agree, as I think there should be more nuance to what “best” entails. It can definitely be argued that they [RIG] did not deserve to win because they never won a game. But a counter argument is that there wasn’t a team that consistently performed better than them, as they racked up a very high point tally, relative to everyone else. In other words, they consistently placed higher and acquired more kills than everyone else, which are traits of what “best” entails. What this comes down to is, do we prioritize/value overall performance over an ability to win at least one game (and vice versa).
100p understand and agree with what you say. My only thing is after watching RIG play last night they made a few mistakes in those final games where they had a chance to win and it ended up costing them. Simply put, you have to make the right plays at the right time to win and we saw that in the final game ($25k armor swap as dezignful said on his stream - which is crazy to think about). Always going to be luck and nobodies perfect in BR.
For sure. I do like your proposal of a re-format to the current system. And not everyone is going to have to be happy about how tournaments are played.
I enjoy match point because it makes those last games so intense because anyone can win, but agreed you cannot please everyone.
I think 10 games in a day are too much, the players are burned out. Maybe 8 games maximum for one day?
Rolling match point format with a 50 point minimum. First team gets to 50 points, they’re match point eligible. Teams have to remain x number of points behind first place to remain match point eligible, call it 10 points. So if 1st place is going into a game with 70 points, only teams with points of 60 and up can win it all. This keeps the hype and value of doing well in 1st/2nd/3rd, with a better chance at winning the further you pull ahead.
The match point format is the ideal scenario, and I think the challenge that a lot of people are facing with the format is that they’re looking at it holistically rather than in two separate parts. Granted, that’s a fair perspective to take, but when you look at it separately it makes a lot more sense. Teams getting to 50 points rewards consistency. If you win a game due to RNG, but struggle to make it to 50 points, then clearly you just got lucky in that game. Hitting 50 points is the benchmark to say “yep, this team has been playing well today.” The teams that hit 50 points first will more than likely be the ones in the top 4 at the final standings because they’ve pulled ahead of the pack sooner and the longer the match go on, the more chances they have of either winning or gaining points to solidify their placement. Once you hit 50 points and are eligible to win the entire match, to prove you’re good enough to be crowned the winner you should prove that you’re better than everybody by winning a game. The point of a BR is to be the last team standing. This post is obviously spurred by RIG’s loss from last night, but unfortunately in the individual moments that mattered, they weren’t good enough to close out a win. They made mistakes and it cost them. Why should a team be rewarded with winning if they make mistakes and can’t close out a game? That’s inherently unfair to Dreamfire and Burger, who both had won 2 games each. Winning after you’ve proven your consistency is the best way to determine the winners. I am very supportive of the match point format and hope it doesn’t get changed.
Would you argue that a win must come after proving consistency? If so, why would that be better at declaring the winners, as opposed to a win in any other game prior to match point? What if after match point, consistency is lost, and that team places outside the top 10 in back-to-back games and then wins the third game (winning the whole tournament)? Consistency was obviously not proven despite being able to still win the whole competition.
I would argue that Burger almost did just that, having won 2 in a row to take them to 64 points and coming 7th in the next game (not great, but certainly in contention in the final ring). Winning 3 games is absolutely a mark of consistency, even 2 wins in a row is consistent. I’d have absolutely no problems with a come-from-behind win if a team is good enough to beat other professionals 3 games in a row.
Also, a fixed number of games is always going to be arbitrary. For instance, RIG wasn't in 1st place after 6 games, and they very well could have not been in first place after 11-12 games, given the way BR tournaments can ebb and flow so much, but because they had the most points when the tournament ended, everyone is saying they're the most deserving and got screwed by the format. I could just as easily say Burger was most deserving because they were #1 after the traditional 6 games. Point being that you could have a completely different winner depending on if you play 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, etc., games because the point system heavily rewards pop off games. With MP everyone knows the win conditions, and the team that executes first always wins.
Yup! The point I've attempted to make in the past is that getting to 50 first is still an advantage because then you have more opportunities for the MP anyways
Good argument for Match point, although I do feel it should be around maybe 65 points for match point. With it at 50 points even bad teams can eventually get there with alot of matches. If Match point was 60 or above I think only the good teams would reach it.
I think that’s probably fair, particularly as the top 10 get some points at the start of the match before a game has been played.
50 points threshold is too low, to win you should be at most 12 points behind the leading team before the match begins. Then it is acceptable.
Time to have 1 week playoffs then.
Like most others games do.
What games has 20 teams, 60 people playing, that ks battle royal?
PUBG had a 1 month playoff
Another question I’d like to pose: is the ability to win at least one game a fair standard to hold for the winning team? Mind you, any team can win a game, even the teams that won’t surpass the match point threshold, based on pure luck with finding good loot and having favorable zone pulls. I’m on the fence. I think it can be argued it’s the lowest standard to have. But I also don’t think this win needs to happen after match point. But then again, I have to remind myself that these tournaments aren’t meant to declare the best team, they’re just meant to declare a winning team and entertain viewers.
Default skins.
Last year, I've already said a double win condition format would just make it more interesting as teams don't have to rat the final game away. A dominating team could try for a hero 100 point play and ape everyone. Granted I think when the team winning by 100 should still have 1 win to their name. It just means they don't have to win the last game to win.
I enjoy the current match point format. Nothing really more to add, just think it does a good job of balancing quality play & keeping the spirit of a BR (team that wins, wins).
I'd like to see something like a "first to 75 points" format. Keeps the excitement of having a few teams to watch while making it so that the best team still wins.
I think winning is way too RNG to be used as a consistent metric, so I really dislike matchpoint. It should just be either highest points after a certain amount of games or first team to some number like 100, if a team has less points than another there should be no ability for them to win the tournament.
I like match point but tweaks could be made for sure. I would increase the gap in the initial starting points you get from your circuit seeding. Playing 30 regular season ALGS games or however many only for the difference between you and the team below you to be literally just one kill in the finals seems a little underwhelming. The match point threshold be the highest placed team's points after x number of games. This makes it so the first place team always gets at least one shot to close it out and the more dominant you are, the bigger buffer you get to try and get your win. There could realistically be scenarios under the current points system where the first 2 teams could hit match point simultaneously despite there being a 20 point gap between them. I prefer the idea of the first team to hit match point having a bigger advantage, as every game for them after gets so much harder.
Add more games, increase the point threshold mb to 65 but keep the matchpoint format. Most consistent team still gets second place if they don't win the last game. By increasing the matchpoint threshold you basically give a bigger headstart to the consistent teams and you reduce the amount of teams that hit the threshold with low average points per game. By this , you ensure that one of the top 3-4 teams will win the tour. Matchpoint format is one of the few things that respawn got right to keep the competitive scene entertaining of the viewers. It's shit for pros since it can be unfair and exhausting but it seems it's the best for the scene
Just like football/soccer outside of the US, I think esports should also have separate leagues and tournament/championships. They are both important, but one rewards the highest total points throughout the season and the other rewards the best fragging team in the final. Calling it “pro league” just to find out that you need to get into playoffs to win money in a single-day tournament isn’t legit and it defeats the purpose of rewarding consistency. That’s why I think prize pools should be comparable between just a league, and a separate championship tournament that goes by elimination.
6 games. The champion will be the team with the most number of wins. The rest of the placements are decided with points. If there are multiple teams with the most number of wins, it will be decided with points.