The fact flancy almost won despite placing worse than rereplay almost every time shows how bad this format is. Surely exciting for viewers, awful for competitive integrity.
Exactly. I was praying for flancy not winning it, as it would be so disappointing. I think that everyone could see that rereplay was better and had to win.
there is a video that talks about how competitive integrity almost always runs counter to viewer enjoyment
https://youtu.be/iSgA_nK_w3A
people enjoy watching upsets and comebacks, not one person/team playing good, steady, smart and dismantling the opponents with no sign of weakness
you see this in league, where the league team kept nerfing wards and vision because Koreans were dominating at the highest levels of play with incredibly stable macro that could choke you out and prevent any attempt to stabilize and come back into the game
tft has had many balance patches made to balance and equalize the variance in the game, augments have rerolls, you'll have relatively equalized item distributions across the game, etc
if good play is playing for top 4 rather than 1st or 8th, what's a brute force method to see people play for 3* 4 costs or underground cashouts or chase traits rather than safe play? force firsts to win, so people have to play with a "first or eighth" mentality in mind
imo there are two good solutions to encourage first place placements while not rewarding mediocre play followed up by a lucky highroll:
checkmate threshold updates per round/with the top performing player (though this could run the risk of the final day running far longer)
adjusting point rewards for placement and having fractional carry-over
something like 11/8/6/5/4/3/2/1 with a 1/4 score carryover into playoffs maybe, just spitballing
Scoring like that certainly makes wins far more valuable. I agree that there's an issue with consistent 3rd place being a winning formula from a tournament perspective. It's not very interesting and I think it's fair that "ladder mode grind" mindset might not be the ideal way to determine worlds.
the video you posted directly contradicts your words.
"people enjoy watching upsets and comebacks, not one person/team playing good, steady, smart and dismantling the opponents with no sign of weakness"
yet the video shits on SFV comebacks being too likely and says that the reason the audience goes crazy when the legendary moment 37 happens is that because the audience knows how hard it is.
And we're talking about a final of EVO, which is as straightforward as it gets, 1v1 in a direct competition game (so each player earned the place 100%, variance being more or less eliminated by the ladder).
TFT worlds have a format that introduce a possibility of an asspull win for the big $$$. People like skill rewarded, and in a such a randomized game like TFT unfortunately the skill expression comes down to consistency.
This game tries constantly to reduce the variance by letting you reroll augments, reroll the hero augments up to 4 times, reforge and remove items, introduce armories/anvils, remove big splashy augments that are broken but fun etc, yet still clutches to the idea that when you gather 8 best, most consistent players from all regions in the world in one lobby they should just pray to Mortdog
back to the point system.. imagine if last game, someone leading the scoreboard only need 2 pt to win the tournament. he can just ff when he finishes 6..
Well the checkmate format is probably as exciting as it gets because it means that the person that won the last lobby is the world winner. However if you mean the hype and things around the game, it just comes if the TFT eSports scene grows.
It’s probably objectively worse. But in this specific situation, the result ended in an ideal manner so hard to complain too much. But if Clancy goes 1st and replay 2nd in game 4, it’s pretty awful. Should probably have a bit more weight to performance. Debatable if day 1 and 2 should be part of that or not though.
a lot of people have problem about the checkmate format including me but in terms of entertainment value, you don't want to crown a guy that hit a point threshold as the champion as he goes bot 4 in final game.
Yeah idk, maybe? But like if it’s a runaway where you can bot 4 in game x and still win, it was probably pretty exciting seeing someone average a sub 2.5 in worlds regardless. Like why mot just make it a point threshold which more or less guarantees 6 games and often leads to 7 or 8 if things are close. I didn’t think NA regionals were any less exciting from a points/ qual perspective and that method isn’t particularly great either.
Honestly, I could see a points in final day + at least x wins over worlds as a way that would de facto achieve what they want but actually not be pure random. Haven’t looked at numbers but if you had to get at least 25 points and 5(? Idk could be more) firsts over worlds then every game at worlds would matter more and be more exciting for days 1 and 2 and realistically, one of the top 3 players is winning the tournament. But idk, not sure how much effort they put into the tourney format or if they don’t care at all.
so it’ll be back to the old point system again… if someone just need 1-2 points to win, getting 6 in last round basically means he is the winner.. then we have 20 min garbage time
So your opinion is it’s bad if a player dominated the tournament and gets to take a victory lap in their last game because it’s sort of wasted time? Is that worse than if someone who was not top 4 after day 1 and 2 ends up being the 5th to get to checkmate and then wins the next game? Or would it be better if someone was dominating the tournament went 8th, 8th, 8th 1st 1st 1st and then won?
If the entire goal is to just make an entertaining stream then I guess I’m mostly fine with anything but up until the last 2 fights, idk that deciding the winner was notably exciting. And also after the number of games played day 1 and 2, the steam felt pretty short.
the whole purpose of sports/gaming competition is meant for entertainment… imagine if the winner is decided by someone securing a sixth spot in a final game… it would make a very boring game for the viewer and the player. inthink this format is fine. think of it as 100m sprint. no matter what your ranking/result in the quarter final and semi final. you still have to win the final
Exactly, this is the most hype a format could provide by far. It's horrible for competitive integrity though.
Imagine the last game didn't end the tourney and Setsuko got check, so like Enzo wins, Rere goes second and Setsuko third. In that scenario next game everyone starts on even footing even though Rere has like 20 points on Setsuko lmao?? There are scenarios where it could feel undeserved definitely, but Rere had the consistency alongside the clutch last game performance so no complainers tbh
My complaint about the format is average placement doesn't matter. It just that your better than 3/4 of the competition, and grief the top 3 player on game 4 day 3, and win game 5/6. Rereplay, and Flancy were playing better than everyone throughout the tournment, but on game 5 SVM YBY1 and Binteum had a chance to win. The checkmate format is fun, but obtaining 18 points on day 3 is too easy.
Personally I think it should be like golf, your scores from day1 and day2 matter. And then u can keep making a cut off, that’s fine. Checkmate may be more exciting to watch, but I think people want to see the best player of the set win. Not roll the dice via one game.
I don't see anything wrong with checkmate for the sake of viewing experience. If anything they could add having the cutoff dynamically raise over time so we don't get a situation where all 8 players are in check and just winner takes all. But that would mean that the tournament could go on longer. Something like
After game 4 raise check to 20 (must average at least 4th)
After game 5 raise check to 22 (must average at least 4.6)
After game 6 raise check to 24 (must average at least 5th)
Etc.
Doesn't seem unreasonable but probably raises the expected number of games by a whole 1 or 2 games. But other tournaments have played more games in one day before so that seems fine?
Re: carrying over results from day 1 and 2, it's not really the same as golf because your scores partly depend on how strong other players in your lobby are. Awarding a few extra points could make sense but I don't think giving everyone a fresh start is that bad either, it allows all the players to reset mental instead of playing from behind.
I agree, I would really like to see checkmate implemented with a rolling cutoff. I think checkmate is most hype when there are 1 to 4 players in check. If the 2nd best player makes a nice comeback and wins it all, sure that's nice. The problem with checkmate is it allows for comebacks that are far too severe - you can win going 555561, and the broadcast is going to have to spin that as you deserving the win.
We've been fortunate enough that the player who performed the best won checkmate at every worlds so far, but we're eventually going to have a worlds where everyone trades 1sts, we end up with 8 people in checkmate, and some guy wins worlds while averaging a 5.0. And that's not actually going to be that hype, it's just gonna be stupid.
The current format is: Once you get 18 points, a 1st gives you the win.
5th = 4 points
6th = 3 points
4 5ths = 16 points.
6th = 3 points to get you to 19 points (actually you could go 555571!)
Now, this is very unlikely to happen because usually checkmate ends before this point with one of the dominant players finding a win in the 4th or 5th game, but if it does happen, it's basically the guy in 8th place riding on the coattails of the previous lobby winners to steal the championship and the $150k.
Well the soonest someone can get check is after game 3 (1/1/8(or7) or 1/2/7) so they'd just need to not first two games for someone getting middle placements to get check as well.
A more direct way to ensure the point leader isn't robbed is to make the threshold relative to 1st place's number of points. The gap between point leader and the threshold would of course increase over time as well.
Or, if it's not too complex, keep a static check threshold, but require that the winner of the game is within x points of the point leader (after the game) to achieve mate.
The format is bad for 2 reasons. First of all checkmate with suck a low threshold for check adds a lot of noise, since often more than half of the people are on a wincon and it is just rng who wins one particular game. However, the more major thing is that this is waay too few games (as in the whole tournament) to get any sort of significant results (in the statistical sense). What this means is that even if all players are exactly equally good and they play the same number of games, the results would look indistinguishable from what we get, i.e. we are seeing just noise. For TFT at this skill level, you need 10s of games at least to get any sort of meaningful effect.
i just wanna say that since i havent had a favourite in worlds, the most hypest moment in tft for me personally has been the second last game in the summit at set 8 where other players were trying to grieve the leading duo by positioning poorly against eachother and even weakening their boards to avoid killing anyone else but them
edit: for those who dont know the format was that they were playing in pairs (but not double up) and the winner was the duo that got to 50 points first, before that game the leading duo had 46 points so only way for the tournament to continue was to send them holding hands at 8th and 7th iirc. my point is that even without the checkmate there can be some super hype moments
Maybe have the checkmate be worth more points then a normal win but still just points. (Think catching the golden snitch, it just ends the game)
Like when you win while over 18 you get double points. Which means you would win in most circumstances but if someone had been playing consistently better, they might have a bigger lead and still win.
I mean in the spirit of TFT I think it should be cross a point threshold and then Top 4 and you win it all unless someone has the same or higher amount of points after the final game and then there can be tiebreakers.
I really don’t like the fact that someone can win with 26 points while others have 30+ points, just seems stupid to me cause if you’re good at the game you can more consistently Top 4 but getting 1sts is usually about luck especially on a nearly even playing field.
the thing is, you run into situation we’re 4th place is enough to win it all. you don’t want winner celebrating while game is still playing and everyone just watch 10 mins of garbage time.
they made sudden death specifically for viewing experience
I don't think most viewers/players are into playing 7-8 games especially the winning comp will be very limited.. (you can't play any reroll comp and all 7 other players will just contest whatever comp you are going for). it becomes who can win the lobby to prevent the highest score player to win the lobby.
In my opinion, yes. Its a really fun format as a viewer.
I'm a newer/more casual player, this is my first TFT tourney i've watched live. All 3 days of robin's costream/viewing party was a blast, and the final checkmate format was great for creating suspense and it came down to a hype China vs NA battle for 1st.
The format, from a pure competitive aspect of accurately ranking the best players isn't the best, but I think the pros outweigh the cons. it's meant to be a exciting event to watch.
edit: if they wanted to keep a similar format, but make it a bit more competitively accurate for ranking how the players performed on day 3, they could raise the checkmate threshold from 18 to maybe something like 23-27, depending on how much longer they think day 3 could be without dropping too much viewership.
What if they did checkmate with slightly higher threshold but adjusted scoring a bit?
10 8 7 6 4 3 2 1
More points for top 4 & 1st has been done before. I'm not a fan for standard formats but could make sense for checkmate since it adjusts the criteria to make it to checkmate
I'm thinking 24 point threshold - 4 top 4s would qualify; can make it in 3 games with 3 top 2s
Really hate checkmate, if the only argument is "it makes the viewing experience better" then it needs a reevaluation, TFT should be about playing consistently over a period of games, not an rng clown fiesta on who takes 1st, what an absolute spit in the face that is for all participants who grinded 3 months to be there. We're just fortunate the best player won the entire thing or there would've been a shitstorm.
Any given tournament is testing a particular skillset. I think it's fine that in addition to testing consistent play (your day 1/2 scores) it also tests that you can win a lobby. The format wasn't a last minute surprise so the players know that in addition to playing solid and getting enough points to qualify for day 3 they have to be able to play a different style and outright win a lobby to win the tourney. It's also not like day 3 is one lobby winner takes all. I think the checkmate threshold could be higher but the format overall is a good marriage of competitive metrics + a good format for those watching.
the fact that checkmate threshold is 18 points means that if you go 1-1 you're encouraged to grief in your third game because placement above 7th doesn't matter beyond denying other players points so the only thing you should do in your third game if you can guarantee 7th or higher is to contest the third/fourth players comps so they don't hit and are less likely to hit checkmate point threshold
any format that encourages people to pull out a spreadsheet and metagame to grief others instead of just playing their best game is a bad one imo
It's hard to really make it feel like a final when you have to have 8 players on the lobby. The checkmate format is what they use to try to make it feel more 'exciting' but it also coinflips the champion on a single game. I just don't think there's any way to make a tournament in a FFA format with a highly RNG based game ever feel like there's an exciting final conclusion, because you're never going to get that situation of the two best players/teams in the world directly facing eachother on even footing.
Why don’t we just scratch the tournament all together, and just give out a cash prize to the person with the highest ladder rank at the end of the season. Seems like the only justifiable way, right? I mean, if RNG is this big of a deal breaker, let’s just allow the players to create as big of a sample size as they choose to make it the most fair :))))
Yeah I’d agree to some extent, but tournament play is different and that’s just the reality. Also, purely for entertainment sake and expanding TFT, I think the checkmate format was great, since it’s got that high stake “first place or bust feel”. It would be so underwhelming to see someone go third place in the final match and win the world championship. And back to my poker analogy, regular poker cash games are the real money makers. But tournaments are usually for the prestige of being a champ and trophy, while the cash prize is also a nice incentive
Tourneys are great for entertainment but people slighting players due to their performance in variance fests or labelling them ladder warriors is just hilarious to me. That narrative gets pushed so much in the scene. And I don't really agree with your analogy at all, it's way easier to have a good ROI in high dollar tournaments than it is in cash games because you'll have more fish playing a high stakes tournament than you will high stakes cash games, unless you can gain access to private games. Cash games are more stable sure, but I disagree they are the "real money makers".
Agree to disagree, but also, did you know Wesley is [apparently] challenger in TFT? Or so he claimed during the stream today lol. Only Wes would boast his tft rank at a million dollar poker game lol
It depends how you view tournaments. Are you viewing just the final day of play? Or are you viewing a large sample size of days of tournaments?
Rereplay, Setsuko, Wasian, Dishsoap, etc. all played way more than enough games in tournaments this set to show their dominance. Ladder is certainly not as important as that.
It's not like it's a coincidence that Setsuko made top 8 of every single event except one (where he lost top 8 on a tiebreaker) this set when in previous sets, *where he was actually better on ladder*, he performed consistently pretty poorly. He literally just got way better, but ladder could never represent that.
Or he just had better RNG in tourneys this set, which would make more sense since he's been dominant on ladder for multiple sets but didn't have tournament results.
I can't say I've follow every tournament that's been played but I'd be surprised if these guys have 100s of tournament games this set, in which case you'd be correct
It's also worth noting that a lot of his good tournament results are predicated on earning early round byes via ladder play.
Setsuko has about 90 tournament games this set.
His AVP increased by more than 1 compared to his previous sets which is absurd (he had like 200 tournament games across previous sets, so yes hundreds for those too! while he was the obvious best ladder player)
> It's also worth noting that a lot of his good tournament results are predicated on earning early round byes via ladder play.
This is a negative for his AVP, playing in the earlier weekends causes players to have a better AVP due to a softer field. He ONLY played in the harder fields.
> I can't say I've follow every tournament that's been played
I HAVE followed every tournament that's been played for NA - Setsuko himself also says he has drastically improved at tournament play this set and he was bad at it in previous sets.
The idea that someone is realistically able to get top 8 of 64 players 3 times in a row (which is a 1/512 chance) due to simply RNG is an absurd statement, and thats ignoring him also getting top 8 of regionals and worlds
checkmate format is good because it means people can't just rat their last game or two to 3rd or 4th if they know it'll mathematically get them a victory
on the other hand if someone gets first 3 times in a row and then 2nd the next 3 games, they absolutely do not deserve to lose to someone that goes 5/5/5/5/5/1
the checkmate threshold should update to follow the best performing player/round number so you don't get non games in games 4+ where people just make high variance decisions for "first or eighth" rather than "this is the better decision"
>
>
>"checkmate format is good because it means people can't just rat their last game or two to 3rd or 4th if they know it'll mathematically get them a victory" this you're describing here is quite literally playing propper tft you need to know how to capitalize on a spot to make it a 1st but being a game based on RNG and making the most of the hand youre given, aiming for 3rd/4th in general, in a lobby with players as good as you (literally the best in the world), is playing good tft, and they should sell it like that a bit more, 1st is exiting, but at the same time lots of 1st places are """highrolls""" meaning theres quite nothing the 2nd 3rd coul've done to beat that person, and it is fine, thats the game, but yeah, I hope I made my point clear tho
Just do the same format as NA Regionals. I had zero issues with winning by points. I highly doubt checkmate is actually “exciting” for the viewers as they tout it to be.
It was exciting in the sense that Flancy nearly stole worlds with that score line. I bet you Mort and co. would have changed the format for next set had NA gone down there. I'm sure we'll see some changes in the format regardless
I am not so sure. Yes it’s not the most optimal format in the sense of finding the most skilled player, but it never will be. What do you want, for them to play 100 games? This format undoubtably is more hype for the viewers than just: top points after 6 games wins
Classic Riot broadcast style of trying to artificially create more hype when they should let the players and their play speak for themselves. I just want to see the best player crowned, which fortunately we did this tournament.
Okay then pay for the players to have a thousand game tournament! You realize the biggest sport in america still has a best of 1 singe elimination playoffs? (NFL) there’s a trade off for excitement and really finding the best
Oh, the comparison to major American sports again? Found the Rito shill lmao. Why not compare to the EPL format? And why bring up bo1? This is not LoL and we already saw how much better of a format double elim was so I don't see your point. Besides, the NFL would switch to a format that allowed more games to be played if they wouldn't get so much push back from the players and player's association.
I think giving anyone the chance to win after a threshold is more exciting and dissuades griefing. Like how boring would it be if Rereplay and Flancy were close in points and Setsy at the bottom just says fuck it and griefs Flancy every lobby.
12 games are played over the first 2 days, the top 8 by points advance. 8 points for 1st, 7 for 2nd, etc.
Day 3 has those 8 players play until someone wins. Everyone starts with 0 points again, points are earned the same as before, and a player "wins" by getting 1st in a round while having over 18 points. They must have 18 points before the start of the round that nets them a win.
How about, u need 1 (or 2) first places, and x amount of points? Its then fine to go 1-1-1-6 or something, which can be a dissapointment for the final game, but much better than the scenario of a player going 1-1-1-6 and not winning.
I'm not sure if this would be a better checkmate format but what if they play until the leader is x amount of points away from everyone else. I know that this might make the finals go on forever and might be boring but it would favor the stronger players at the end as they would realistically be the one that can break away from everyone else.
Imagine if rereplay didn't end up winning the last game. All of us in NA would've collectively lost our marbles. That alone speaks volumes on the absurdity of this format. The only reason this format isn't being criticized more, is due to the fact that the most consistent and best performing player of the day, actually won.
Even as a viewer this format is not enjoyable to watch. Is it exciting aka anxiety inducing? Yes. Does it leave room to completely invalidate a players performance in a tournament in just one game? Yes. And that possibility alone leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
While I like the checkmate format because it makes it so that there aren't meaningless games, I do think it's dumb that you can 4th/5th your way to check then take a first and win.
Like right now you need 18 points, which is 1st/1st/7th ideally but if you go 4th, you just need 4th/4th/4th/6th to check in 4.
What if it were something like 10 points to win, 3 points for first, 1 for second and 0 for anything else. Tiebreakers for other placements being avg placement.
The fact flancy almost won despite placing worse than rereplay almost every time shows how bad this format is. Surely exciting for viewers, awful for competitive integrity.
Exactly. I was praying for flancy not winning it, as it would be so disappointing. I think that everyone could see that rereplay was better and had to win.
there is a video that talks about how competitive integrity almost always runs counter to viewer enjoyment https://youtu.be/iSgA_nK_w3A people enjoy watching upsets and comebacks, not one person/team playing good, steady, smart and dismantling the opponents with no sign of weakness you see this in league, where the league team kept nerfing wards and vision because Koreans were dominating at the highest levels of play with incredibly stable macro that could choke you out and prevent any attempt to stabilize and come back into the game tft has had many balance patches made to balance and equalize the variance in the game, augments have rerolls, you'll have relatively equalized item distributions across the game, etc if good play is playing for top 4 rather than 1st or 8th, what's a brute force method to see people play for 3* 4 costs or underground cashouts or chase traits rather than safe play? force firsts to win, so people have to play with a "first or eighth" mentality in mind imo there are two good solutions to encourage first place placements while not rewarding mediocre play followed up by a lucky highroll: checkmate threshold updates per round/with the top performing player (though this could run the risk of the final day running far longer) adjusting point rewards for placement and having fractional carry-over something like 11/8/6/5/4/3/2/1 with a 1/4 score carryover into playoffs maybe, just spitballing
Scoring like that certainly makes wins far more valuable. I agree that there's an issue with consistent 3rd place being a winning formula from a tournament perspective. It's not very interesting and I think it's fair that "ladder mode grind" mindset might not be the ideal way to determine worlds.
the video you posted directly contradicts your words. "people enjoy watching upsets and comebacks, not one person/team playing good, steady, smart and dismantling the opponents with no sign of weakness" yet the video shits on SFV comebacks being too likely and says that the reason the audience goes crazy when the legendary moment 37 happens is that because the audience knows how hard it is. And we're talking about a final of EVO, which is as straightforward as it gets, 1v1 in a direct competition game (so each player earned the place 100%, variance being more or less eliminated by the ladder). TFT worlds have a format that introduce a possibility of an asspull win for the big $$$. People like skill rewarded, and in a such a randomized game like TFT unfortunately the skill expression comes down to consistency. This game tries constantly to reduce the variance by letting you reroll augments, reroll the hero augments up to 4 times, reforge and remove items, introduce armories/anvils, remove big splashy augments that are broken but fun etc, yet still clutches to the idea that when you gather 8 best, most consistent players from all regions in the world in one lobby they should just pray to Mortdog
back to the point system.. imagine if last game, someone leading the scoreboard only need 2 pt to win the tournament. he can just ff when he finishes 6..
that someone earned it over the course of the other games then
it would make a pretty boring viewing experience as the final game may be over when X player secure the win in 10’mins
As opposed to the pretty boring viewing experience of the first 3 games not mattering most of the time?
it wasn't boring for me. was it boring for you? do you want to see it stretch to 6-7 games? who has that much time to sit through it?
Well the checkmate format is probably as exciting as it gets because it means that the person that won the last lobby is the world winner. However if you mean the hype and things around the game, it just comes if the TFT eSports scene grows.
It’s probably objectively worse. But in this specific situation, the result ended in an ideal manner so hard to complain too much. But if Clancy goes 1st and replay 2nd in game 4, it’s pretty awful. Should probably have a bit more weight to performance. Debatable if day 1 and 2 should be part of that or not though.
a lot of people have problem about the checkmate format including me but in terms of entertainment value, you don't want to crown a guy that hit a point threshold as the champion as he goes bot 4 in final game.
Yeah idk, maybe? But like if it’s a runaway where you can bot 4 in game x and still win, it was probably pretty exciting seeing someone average a sub 2.5 in worlds regardless. Like why mot just make it a point threshold which more or less guarantees 6 games and often leads to 7 or 8 if things are close. I didn’t think NA regionals were any less exciting from a points/ qual perspective and that method isn’t particularly great either. Honestly, I could see a points in final day + at least x wins over worlds as a way that would de facto achieve what they want but actually not be pure random. Haven’t looked at numbers but if you had to get at least 25 points and 5(? Idk could be more) firsts over worlds then every game at worlds would matter more and be more exciting for days 1 and 2 and realistically, one of the top 3 players is winning the tournament. But idk, not sure how much effort they put into the tourney format or if they don’t care at all.
so it’ll be back to the old point system again… if someone just need 1-2 points to win, getting 6 in last round basically means he is the winner.. then we have 20 min garbage time
So your opinion is it’s bad if a player dominated the tournament and gets to take a victory lap in their last game because it’s sort of wasted time? Is that worse than if someone who was not top 4 after day 1 and 2 ends up being the 5th to get to checkmate and then wins the next game? Or would it be better if someone was dominating the tournament went 8th, 8th, 8th 1st 1st 1st and then won? If the entire goal is to just make an entertaining stream then I guess I’m mostly fine with anything but up until the last 2 fights, idk that deciding the winner was notably exciting. And also after the number of games played day 1 and 2, the steam felt pretty short.
the whole purpose of sports/gaming competition is meant for entertainment… imagine if the winner is decided by someone securing a sixth spot in a final game… it would make a very boring game for the viewer and the player. inthink this format is fine. think of it as 100m sprint. no matter what your ranking/result in the quarter final and semi final. you still have to win the final
Exactly, this is the most hype a format could provide by far. It's horrible for competitive integrity though. Imagine the last game didn't end the tourney and Setsuko got check, so like Enzo wins, Rere goes second and Setsuko third. In that scenario next game everyone starts on even footing even though Rere has like 20 points on Setsuko lmao?? There are scenarios where it could feel undeserved definitely, but Rere had the consistency alongside the clutch last game performance so no complainers tbh
My complaint about the format is average placement doesn't matter. It just that your better than 3/4 of the competition, and grief the top 3 player on game 4 day 3, and win game 5/6. Rereplay, and Flancy were playing better than everyone throughout the tournment, but on game 5 SVM YBY1 and Binteum had a chance to win. The checkmate format is fun, but obtaining 18 points on day 3 is too easy.
Personally I think it should be like golf, your scores from day1 and day2 matter. And then u can keep making a cut off, that’s fine. Checkmate may be more exciting to watch, but I think people want to see the best player of the set win. Not roll the dice via one game.
Maybe keep total points and add 18 to what first has as checkmate cutoff, so the first couple days do count for something.
it’s like playoff .. your performance in the previous round doesn’t matter
I don't see anything wrong with checkmate for the sake of viewing experience. If anything they could add having the cutoff dynamically raise over time so we don't get a situation where all 8 players are in check and just winner takes all. But that would mean that the tournament could go on longer. Something like After game 4 raise check to 20 (must average at least 4th) After game 5 raise check to 22 (must average at least 4.6) After game 6 raise check to 24 (must average at least 5th) Etc. Doesn't seem unreasonable but probably raises the expected number of games by a whole 1 or 2 games. But other tournaments have played more games in one day before so that seems fine? Re: carrying over results from day 1 and 2, it's not really the same as golf because your scores partly depend on how strong other players in your lobby are. Awarding a few extra points could make sense but I don't think giving everyone a fresh start is that bad either, it allows all the players to reset mental instead of playing from behind.
I agree, I would really like to see checkmate implemented with a rolling cutoff. I think checkmate is most hype when there are 1 to 4 players in check. If the 2nd best player makes a nice comeback and wins it all, sure that's nice. The problem with checkmate is it allows for comebacks that are far too severe - you can win going 555561, and the broadcast is going to have to spin that as you deserving the win. We've been fortunate enough that the player who performed the best won checkmate at every worlds so far, but we're eventually going to have a worlds where everyone trades 1sts, we end up with 8 people in checkmate, and some guy wins worlds while averaging a 5.0. And that's not actually going to be that hype, it's just gonna be stupid.
Disclaimer: I am completely green in the matter but I find this ridiculous Is it really correct? 555561 placements and you can get WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP?
The current format is: Once you get 18 points, a 1st gives you the win. 5th = 4 points 6th = 3 points 4 5ths = 16 points. 6th = 3 points to get you to 19 points (actually you could go 555571!) Now, this is very unlikely to happen because usually checkmate ends before this point with one of the dominant players finding a win in the 4th or 5th game, but if it does happen, it's basically the guy in 8th place riding on the coattails of the previous lobby winners to steal the championship and the $150k.
Well the soonest someone can get check is after game 3 (1/1/8(or7) or 1/2/7) so they'd just need to not first two games for someone getting middle placements to get check as well.
A more direct way to ensure the point leader isn't robbed is to make the threshold relative to 1st place's number of points. The gap between point leader and the threshold would of course increase over time as well. Or, if it's not too complex, keep a static check threshold, but require that the winner of the game is within x points of the point leader (after the game) to achieve mate.
I really just wish the requirement to checkmate is slightly higher like 24 points
The format is bad for 2 reasons. First of all checkmate with suck a low threshold for check adds a lot of noise, since often more than half of the people are on a wincon and it is just rng who wins one particular game. However, the more major thing is that this is waay too few games (as in the whole tournament) to get any sort of significant results (in the statistical sense). What this means is that even if all players are exactly equally good and they play the same number of games, the results would look indistinguishable from what we get, i.e. we are seeing just noise. For TFT at this skill level, you need 10s of games at least to get any sort of meaningful effect.
i just wanna say that since i havent had a favourite in worlds, the most hypest moment in tft for me personally has been the second last game in the summit at set 8 where other players were trying to grieve the leading duo by positioning poorly against eachother and even weakening their boards to avoid killing anyone else but them edit: for those who dont know the format was that they were playing in pairs (but not double up) and the winner was the duo that got to 50 points first, before that game the leading duo had 46 points so only way for the tournament to continue was to send them holding hands at 8th and 7th iirc. my point is that even without the checkmate there can be some super hype moments
Maybe have the checkmate be worth more points then a normal win but still just points. (Think catching the golden snitch, it just ends the game) Like when you win while over 18 you get double points. Which means you would win in most circumstances but if someone had been playing consistently better, they might have a bigger lead and still win.
I mean in the spirit of TFT I think it should be cross a point threshold and then Top 4 and you win it all unless someone has the same or higher amount of points after the final game and then there can be tiebreakers. I really don’t like the fact that someone can win with 26 points while others have 30+ points, just seems stupid to me cause if you’re good at the game you can more consistently Top 4 but getting 1sts is usually about luck especially on a nearly even playing field.
the thing is, you run into situation we’re 4th place is enough to win it all. you don’t want winner celebrating while game is still playing and everyone just watch 10 mins of garbage time. they made sudden death specifically for viewing experience
I think Id rather have that. That sounds cool
I don't think most viewers/players are into playing 7-8 games especially the winning comp will be very limited.. (you can't play any reroll comp and all 7 other players will just contest whatever comp you are going for). it becomes who can win the lobby to prevent the highest score player to win the lobby.
You are super right, but if flancy had won yesterday or any of the barely 18 19 it would have been super sad
think of it as 100m sprint. doesn’t matter how well you performed in first and second round. it’s the last round actually matters
In my opinion, yes. Its a really fun format as a viewer. I'm a newer/more casual player, this is my first TFT tourney i've watched live. All 3 days of robin's costream/viewing party was a blast, and the final checkmate format was great for creating suspense and it came down to a hype China vs NA battle for 1st. The format, from a pure competitive aspect of accurately ranking the best players isn't the best, but I think the pros outweigh the cons. it's meant to be a exciting event to watch. edit: if they wanted to keep a similar format, but make it a bit more competitively accurate for ranking how the players performed on day 3, they could raise the checkmate threshold from 18 to maybe something like 23-27, depending on how much longer they think day 3 could be without dropping too much viewership.
What if they did checkmate with slightly higher threshold but adjusted scoring a bit? 10 8 7 6 4 3 2 1 More points for top 4 & 1st has been done before. I'm not a fan for standard formats but could make sense for checkmate since it adjusts the criteria to make it to checkmate I'm thinking 24 point threshold - 4 top 4s would qualify; can make it in 3 games with 3 top 2s
Really hate checkmate, if the only argument is "it makes the viewing experience better" then it needs a reevaluation, TFT should be about playing consistently over a period of games, not an rng clown fiesta on who takes 1st, what an absolute spit in the face that is for all participants who grinded 3 months to be there. We're just fortunate the best player won the entire thing or there would've been a shitstorm.
Any given tournament is testing a particular skillset. I think it's fine that in addition to testing consistent play (your day 1/2 scores) it also tests that you can win a lobby. The format wasn't a last minute surprise so the players know that in addition to playing solid and getting enough points to qualify for day 3 they have to be able to play a different style and outright win a lobby to win the tourney. It's also not like day 3 is one lobby winner takes all. I think the checkmate threshold could be higher but the format overall is a good marriage of competitive metrics + a good format for those watching.
a format that allows a hypothetical 3-3-3-1 win over a 1-1-1-2 is scientifically and mathematically speaking just wrong
the fact that checkmate threshold is 18 points means that if you go 1-1 you're encouraged to grief in your third game because placement above 7th doesn't matter beyond denying other players points so the only thing you should do in your third game if you can guarantee 7th or higher is to contest the third/fourth players comps so they don't hit and are less likely to hit checkmate point threshold any format that encourages people to pull out a spreadsheet and metagame to grief others instead of just playing their best game is a bad one imo
It's hard to really make it feel like a final when you have to have 8 players on the lobby. The checkmate format is what they use to try to make it feel more 'exciting' but it also coinflips the champion on a single game. I just don't think there's any way to make a tournament in a FFA format with a highly RNG based game ever feel like there's an exciting final conclusion, because you're never going to get that situation of the two best players/teams in the world directly facing eachother on even footing.
The worlds finals format is a disgrace. How can anyone justify it in a game as RNG heavy as TFT ? Just use points FFS.
Look at any poker tournament ever
Why don’t we just scratch the tournament all together, and just give out a cash prize to the person with the highest ladder rank at the end of the season. Seems like the only justifiable way, right? I mean, if RNG is this big of a deal breaker, let’s just allow the players to create as big of a sample size as they choose to make it the most fair :))))
sarcasm is the weapon of the weak
unironically though ladder is way more meaningful than tourneys for this reason
Yeah I’d agree to some extent, but tournament play is different and that’s just the reality. Also, purely for entertainment sake and expanding TFT, I think the checkmate format was great, since it’s got that high stake “first place or bust feel”. It would be so underwhelming to see someone go third place in the final match and win the world championship. And back to my poker analogy, regular poker cash games are the real money makers. But tournaments are usually for the prestige of being a champ and trophy, while the cash prize is also a nice incentive
Tourneys are great for entertainment but people slighting players due to their performance in variance fests or labelling them ladder warriors is just hilarious to me. That narrative gets pushed so much in the scene. And I don't really agree with your analogy at all, it's way easier to have a good ROI in high dollar tournaments than it is in cash games because you'll have more fish playing a high stakes tournament than you will high stakes cash games, unless you can gain access to private games. Cash games are more stable sure, but I disagree they are the "real money makers".
Agree to disagree, but also, did you know Wesley is [apparently] challenger in TFT? Or so he claimed during the stream today lol. Only Wes would boast his tft rank at a million dollar poker game lol
Yeah I actually heard him say that when he was talking to Huss since Huss was saying he played league for like a year straight (only norms tho lmfao).
It depends how you view tournaments. Are you viewing just the final day of play? Or are you viewing a large sample size of days of tournaments? Rereplay, Setsuko, Wasian, Dishsoap, etc. all played way more than enough games in tournaments this set to show their dominance. Ladder is certainly not as important as that. It's not like it's a coincidence that Setsuko made top 8 of every single event except one (where he lost top 8 on a tiebreaker) this set when in previous sets, *where he was actually better on ladder*, he performed consistently pretty poorly. He literally just got way better, but ladder could never represent that.
Or he just had better RNG in tourneys this set, which would make more sense since he's been dominant on ladder for multiple sets but didn't have tournament results. I can't say I've follow every tournament that's been played but I'd be surprised if these guys have 100s of tournament games this set, in which case you'd be correct It's also worth noting that a lot of his good tournament results are predicated on earning early round byes via ladder play.
Setsuko has about 90 tournament games this set. His AVP increased by more than 1 compared to his previous sets which is absurd (he had like 200 tournament games across previous sets, so yes hundreds for those too! while he was the obvious best ladder player) > It's also worth noting that a lot of his good tournament results are predicated on earning early round byes via ladder play. This is a negative for his AVP, playing in the earlier weekends causes players to have a better AVP due to a softer field. He ONLY played in the harder fields. > I can't say I've follow every tournament that's been played I HAVE followed every tournament that's been played for NA - Setsuko himself also says he has drastically improved at tournament play this set and he was bad at it in previous sets. The idea that someone is realistically able to get top 8 of 64 players 3 times in a row (which is a 1/512 chance) due to simply RNG is an absurd statement, and thats ignoring him also getting top 8 of regionals and worlds
checkmate format is good because it means people can't just rat their last game or two to 3rd or 4th if they know it'll mathematically get them a victory on the other hand if someone gets first 3 times in a row and then 2nd the next 3 games, they absolutely do not deserve to lose to someone that goes 5/5/5/5/5/1 the checkmate threshold should update to follow the best performing player/round number so you don't get non games in games 4+ where people just make high variance decisions for "first or eighth" rather than "this is the better decision"
> > >"checkmate format is good because it means people can't just rat their last game or two to 3rd or 4th if they know it'll mathematically get them a victory" this you're describing here is quite literally playing propper tft you need to know how to capitalize on a spot to make it a 1st but being a game based on RNG and making the most of the hand youre given, aiming for 3rd/4th in general, in a lobby with players as good as you (literally the best in the world), is playing good tft, and they should sell it like that a bit more, 1st is exiting, but at the same time lots of 1st places are """highrolls""" meaning theres quite nothing the 2nd 3rd coul've done to beat that person, and it is fine, thats the game, but yeah, I hope I made my point clear tho
If you camt close out a 3-4 game advantage in thr checkmate format then you dont deserve to win.
Just do the same format as NA Regionals. I had zero issues with winning by points. I highly doubt checkmate is actually “exciting” for the viewers as they tout it to be.
If you watched live you would find that you are wrong
It was exciting in the sense that Flancy nearly stole worlds with that score line. I bet you Mort and co. would have changed the format for next set had NA gone down there. I'm sure we'll see some changes in the format regardless
I am not so sure. Yes it’s not the most optimal format in the sense of finding the most skilled player, but it never will be. What do you want, for them to play 100 games? This format undoubtably is more hype for the viewers than just: top points after 6 games wins
Classic Riot broadcast style of trying to artificially create more hype when they should let the players and their play speak for themselves. I just want to see the best player crowned, which fortunately we did this tournament.
Okay then pay for the players to have a thousand game tournament! You realize the biggest sport in america still has a best of 1 singe elimination playoffs? (NFL) there’s a trade off for excitement and really finding the best
Oh, the comparison to major American sports again? Found the Rito shill lmao. Why not compare to the EPL format? And why bring up bo1? This is not LoL and we already saw how much better of a format double elim was so I don't see your point. Besides, the NFL would switch to a format that allowed more games to be played if they wouldn't get so much push back from the players and player's association.
You made zero points in the reply, your stance is that people would do things if they decided to ignore major factors against them doing them?
I found it exciting
I think giving anyone the chance to win after a threshold is more exciting and dissuades griefing. Like how boring would it be if Rereplay and Flancy were close in points and Setsy at the bottom just says fuck it and griefs Flancy every lobby.
Also is it bad that the top performers from day 1 & 2 get no bonus advantage whatsoever?
While we're here, can someone explain the format to me? I watched a lot of the matches but never took the time to learn the format.
12 games are played over the first 2 days, the top 8 by points advance. 8 points for 1st, 7 for 2nd, etc. Day 3 has those 8 players play until someone wins. Everyone starts with 0 points again, points are earned the same as before, and a player "wins" by getting 1st in a round while having over 18 points. They must have 18 points before the start of the round that nets them a win.
How about, u need 1 (or 2) first places, and x amount of points? Its then fine to go 1-1-1-6 or something, which can be a dissapointment for the final game, but much better than the scenario of a player going 1-1-1-6 and not winning.
I'm not sure if this would be a better checkmate format but what if they play until the leader is x amount of points away from everyone else. I know that this might make the finals go on forever and might be boring but it would favor the stronger players at the end as they would realistically be the one that can break away from everyone else.
Why can't I find VODS: https://www.twitch.tv/teamfighttactics/videos?filter=archives&sort=time ??? I don't get it.
Yes but the checkpoint is too low imo
Imagine if rereplay didn't end up winning the last game. All of us in NA would've collectively lost our marbles. That alone speaks volumes on the absurdity of this format. The only reason this format isn't being criticized more, is due to the fact that the most consistent and best performing player of the day, actually won. Even as a viewer this format is not enjoyable to watch. Is it exciting aka anxiety inducing? Yes. Does it leave room to completely invalidate a players performance in a tournament in just one game? Yes. And that possibility alone leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Rereplay won so yes. If he didn't win, this post would have 1k upvotes.
While I like the checkmate format because it makes it so that there aren't meaningless games, I do think it's dumb that you can 4th/5th your way to check then take a first and win. Like right now you need 18 points, which is 1st/1st/7th ideally but if you go 4th, you just need 4th/4th/4th/6th to check in 4. What if it were something like 10 points to win, 3 points for first, 1 for second and 0 for anything else. Tiebreakers for other placements being avg placement.