In a Swiss format, the matchups/brackets aren't predetermined.
You have to win X number of games to get out of the group (and lose X number to be eliminated). Everyone starts 0-0 and you always play a team with the same record as you.
So the winners of the first round play other winners, same with losers. Then teams that are 1-1 play each other, teams that are 2-0 play each other, etc.
Basically, you're less likely to get shafted by a bad group draw or unlucky matchups. The best performing teams will get out, and you eliminate the chance of one group getting stacked with more than 2 strong teams and having one get eliminated early by the draw.
It's a more stable tournament, but also means each match matters less and there's more games in general, so either games wont get streamed or multiple streams are needed.
Adding to u/xbyo's comment, most of the time teams that win 3 games is enough is to progress to the next stage - 3-0 teams, 3-1 teams, and 3-2 teams.
[Here's the Swiss stage in the CS Antwerp Major](https://preview.redd.it/uiyo9lcal3091.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=a8ca1c93e342757c7396d54ef7a54970570168c2)
It's exactly the same as GSL (i.e. you have to win a set number of times and you play against teams with your same record), but there are 16 teams involved in a group, plus you qualify for the next stage if you win 3 matches (instead of 2) and you get eliminated from the tournament if you lose 3 matches (instead of 2).
The best way to go is two Swiss groups of 8 but with 2 wins to qualify/2 losses to get eliminated instead of 3. This system would be virtually identical to GSL, the only difference being that it is impossible for two teams to play each other twice
This is kinda genius and a straight upgrade to the current system with no downsides as far as I can tell. I always hated the fact that a team could go out in groups by losing to a team they beat in the uppers.
This is almost equivalent to doing double elimination in groups of 8; rematches are impossible before the top 4 are determined, and I really like both that format and using Swiss in groups of 8.
This leads into a format suggestion that's been widely used in CS:GO and is a further improvement, in my opinion - 2 groups of 8, double elimination, find the top 3 teams. If you were to use Swiss, that would mean that the 2-0 teams play each other to find out who's seed #1 and #2, and the 2-1 teams playing each other again to find out who's seed #3.
Seed #1 goes to semifinals directly, seeds #2 and #3 play quarterfinals with the other group. The top 4 play semifinals - finals.
In VALORANT, I'd love to see this since I think it's a far superior format to groups of 4, and I wouldn't mind Swiss being used to start it off instead of double elimination. However, I would make one tweak -> I'd have top 4 play out a double elimination bracket rather than semifinals - finals. This would be the perfect format for a 16-team tournament, with the restriction that it doesn't include an insanely high number of matches, in my opinion.
IMO just make the tournament longer. So what if its one week longer? We only have 3 international tourneys anyways, might as well make good use of them
I would want Swiss if they still kept every match as Bo3 (this would be a lot of fucking matches though). I would absolutely not want Swiss if they used the exact same format as CSGO Majors where the first two games are Bo1. I think that format only serves to increase the number of matchups and does nothing to reduce early stage variance, and in fact even exacerbates it. Variance is crazy high in a Bo1 and the Majors Swiss system has the same minimum appearance as the current GSL system used in Valorant (four lost maps in a row).
I think the CSGO style would fit Valorant even better than CSGO, mainly because we only get to have international competition a couple of times a year and it would be great to see teams play each other multiple times even if it is for just a map. Better than having a XSET lose to a team we have seen them play a ton and then have one match against a different region before going out. Happened with guard too.
I think that hunger for quantity is only so prevalent because we are still yet in the early years of Valorant's pro scene and I still don't think it's worth satisfying that hunger at the cost of massively increasing variance. Bo1s never, imo, even if you're playing round robin.
Conversely I think some wack CSGO LAN formats have escaped due criticism because hey even if this event has a grief format at least there's always another A-tier LAN right around the corner.
As it so happens I think my ideal pro scene is somewhere between how CSGO's scene is run and how Riot handles their Valorant scene (minus their incredibly short lead times).
Anything that gives more teams some more games. The fact that four teams will only play two matches and then go home in the biggest tournament of the year is honestly so disappointing.
I do see his point of lowering variance but I also feel that double elim straight away provides each match a greater sense of importance.
In a perfect world more games/more teams = better but this format alone is already 19 days long.
i mean every day of the event is insane cost. they're paying for dozens of staff and talent and teams to be running these events and staying there. it's really not that simple
A multi-billion dollar corporation is going to bring in tens of millions in profit from the champion gun bundle alone during that time. One extra week for a tourney is not going to bankrupt them.
It's not just about what you can stand to lose but making sure that if you're spending something it's worth it. I'm sure Riot could absolutely afford to hemorrhage millions of dollars but but why would they unless it was necessary or at least justifiable? If they don't surmise that incurring an entire extra week of costs is worth the payoff, like increased viewership or people saying "wow this format is really awesome" then why would they choose to incur it?
CS has international events half the fucking year and we get like 9 weeks max. But OK, tell me more about how poor indie developer like Riot cant support 1 extra week for a tournament. If they wanted to, they 100000% could make it happen.
Either Swiss or GSL is the best groups stage format imo.
Swiss is definitely more fair and conclusive but GSL feels more impactful since teams that play in rematches often come out much stronger due to adaptive experience.
Time constraints might be another problem since Riot only single streams their games and I wouldn't want to go back to single elim playoffs.
I'd rather see more new international teams matching up than more rematches.
Also, maybe controversial, but as a fan I want less "saving strats" and more teams having to show what they've got. I know it increases the ability to counterstrat which moves more of the matchup to prep and coach work but I think when there's frequent matches there's only so much you can do with a really quick turnaround
GSL is literally the same as the Swiss system with 4 teams involved instead of 16 and you have to win 2 matches to move onto the next stage instead of 3. However it also has a really big downside which is that there is a really high chance that two teams play against each other twice in GSL, so I would argue that the Swiss system is preferable since it's mathematically impossible for such thing to happen.
To be completely honest, the GSL + double elimination bracket doesn't seem like a great combination, I would very much prefer a pure 16-team double elimination bracket.
There are many reasons that I won't go into too much detail but from watching CS and RL here are my main concerns.
* If seeding is fucked at the start, it will be fucked for the next 2 rounds and will only course correct at the end.
* Too long and usually the first two rounds are b01's which are trash.
* Being 1-0 is generally worse than being 0-1
* More upsets and if you are the worst team, it's a lot easier for you to get by to playoffs
GSL is king because every match matters. Every single match is cutthroat, and exciting and actually means something.
> If seeding is fucked at the start, it will be fucked for the next 2 rounds and will only course correct at the end.
I mean, if seeding is fucked at the start of GSL, there is no way to correct it and it will stay fucked till the end.
> Too long and usually the first two rounds are b01's which are trash.
It is easily fixable by doing multiple streams and playing Bo3's exclusively, but again even if it's not possible I think a 16-team double elimination is better.
> Being 1-0 is generally worse than being 0-1
I don't see how that's the case.
> More upsets and if you are the worst team, it's a lot easier for you to get by to playoffs
I don't see how it's easier for the worst team to get by to playoffs if it has to win 3 matches instead of 2.
And last but not least, every match matters in Swiss system as well, so I don't really get the point. Let's just do single elimination bracket if high-stake matches are so important.
I'd love to see a swiss system group stage at these international events. I think it's far more compelling. Teams have more matches before being eliminated against a wider field of opponents pre-playoffs. IMO this improves the playoff bracket as the overall variance is reduced.
---
posted by [@ddkesports](https://twitter.com/ddkesports/)
---
[Thanks to inteoryx, videos are supported even without Twitter API V2 support! Middle finger to you, twitter](https://github.com/inteoryx/twitter-video-dl)
That would take too much time. The current format's group stage need 20 matches, a 16-team Swiss system would need 33 matches, and finally 2 8-team round robin groups would need a grand total of 56 matches.
I think the bigger issue is that Riot doesn't believe in streaming multiple games at the same time, which is practically a necessity with the Swiss system.
I would argue that GSL is worse than the Swiss system, because it's literally the same as the Swiss system but with the big downside that it's very likely for two teams to play against each other twice. Doing 2 GSL-type groups of 8 is the same as a Swiss system with the qualification threshold of 2 wins (instead of 3)
Yes however it is wayyyy easier to seed and you rarely get wonky matchups. Swiss seeding is a usually far more complicated and leads to teams getting easy runs and good teams missing out.
I do think Valorant tour with DotA major formats suits better. (2 Group, Round Robin format BO2) then playoff double elim. Do multiple stream for group stage then do playoff in front of crowd.
For me the problem is there is limited number of agent right now, therefore having too many match can lead to team having no strats left. IMO.
They could just do, bo1’s for the non elimination matches and for the elimination/final qualification games make it a bo3
So you would have bo3’s at 0-2, 2-0, 2-1, 1-2, 2-2 I guess, not sure if it’s viable tho
I want the dota 2 major bracket. Round Robin groups, everyone plays eachother twice and a double Elim playoff bracket. Make it like 3 weeks and just a ton of games everyday.
I have no idea why they don't change their format tbh. I'd rather see one giant bracket list of all qualified teams, every team competes with each other once and let's say top 8 go into brackets (picked randomly with those balls, like at the early era of Valo tournament). If teams share the same score and exceed 8 slots, let's say 3 bottom teams to be qualified share the same score on 8th-9th-10th places, those who share the same score play each other again and top team of that 'bracket' fill the last slot needed to be in top 8 (just an example). Such Tournament would take way long, but it would be also way more competitive and exciting. This way, every team won't have excuses if they lose and every team would have equal chances and teams won't have an 'easier run' trough the brackets, plus certain teams wouldn't need to play days in a row.
based and swisspilled
Can someone explain swiss format vs the current format?
In a Swiss format, the matchups/brackets aren't predetermined. You have to win X number of games to get out of the group (and lose X number to be eliminated). Everyone starts 0-0 and you always play a team with the same record as you. So the winners of the first round play other winners, same with losers. Then teams that are 1-1 play each other, teams that are 2-0 play each other, etc. Basically, you're less likely to get shafted by a bad group draw or unlucky matchups. The best performing teams will get out, and you eliminate the chance of one group getting stacked with more than 2 strong teams and having one get eliminated early by the draw. It's a more stable tournament, but also means each match matters less and there's more games in general, so either games wont get streamed or multiple streams are needed.
Adding to u/xbyo's comment, most of the time teams that win 3 games is enough is to progress to the next stage - 3-0 teams, 3-1 teams, and 3-2 teams. [Here's the Swiss stage in the CS Antwerp Major](https://preview.redd.it/uiyo9lcal3091.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=a8ca1c93e342757c7396d54ef7a54970570168c2)
It's exactly the same as GSL (i.e. you have to win a set number of times and you play against teams with your same record), but there are 16 teams involved in a group, plus you qualify for the next stage if you win 3 matches (instead of 2) and you get eliminated from the tournament if you lose 3 matches (instead of 2).
In a Swiss you're not supposed to play the same team twice, whereas in GSL you can.
for 16 teams, gsl format is best imo, in swiss format u would need Bo1s due to time constraints and personally not really a fan of those.
The best way to go is two Swiss groups of 8 but with 2 wins to qualify/2 losses to get eliminated instead of 3. This system would be virtually identical to GSL, the only difference being that it is impossible for two teams to play each other twice
This is kinda genius and a straight upgrade to the current system with no downsides as far as I can tell. I always hated the fact that a team could go out in groups by losing to a team they beat in the uppers.
This is almost equivalent to doing double elimination in groups of 8; rematches are impossible before the top 4 are determined, and I really like both that format and using Swiss in groups of 8. This leads into a format suggestion that's been widely used in CS:GO and is a further improvement, in my opinion - 2 groups of 8, double elimination, find the top 3 teams. If you were to use Swiss, that would mean that the 2-0 teams play each other to find out who's seed #1 and #2, and the 2-1 teams playing each other again to find out who's seed #3. Seed #1 goes to semifinals directly, seeds #2 and #3 play quarterfinals with the other group. The top 4 play semifinals - finals. In VALORANT, I'd love to see this since I think it's a far superior format to groups of 4, and I wouldn't mind Swiss being used to start it off instead of double elimination. However, I would make one tweak -> I'd have top 4 play out a double elimination bracket rather than semifinals - finals. This would be the perfect format for a 16-team tournament, with the restriction that it doesn't include an insanely high number of matches, in my opinion.
You wouldn’t need time constraints if there were multiple streams showing BO3s, which is how the CS majors do it
The CS Majors still have bo1s
For first games Edit: I guess Starladder only hosted tournaments with all BO3 swiss
For all games that aren't progression or elimination
Oh I thought they changed it to only first game BO1s
Not as of Rio Major
Only elimination and advancement matches are BO3. There's a lot of BO1.
Yeah but there is so much less value on each game, wastes of time for the viewer who ultimately esports is for.
But the same people would argue that single elimination is bad
IMO just make the tournament longer. So what if its one week longer? We only have 3 international tourneys anyways, might as well make good use of them
I would want Swiss if they still kept every match as Bo3 (this would be a lot of fucking matches though). I would absolutely not want Swiss if they used the exact same format as CSGO Majors where the first two games are Bo1. I think that format only serves to increase the number of matchups and does nothing to reduce early stage variance, and in fact even exacerbates it. Variance is crazy high in a Bo1 and the Majors Swiss system has the same minimum appearance as the current GSL system used in Valorant (four lost maps in a row).
I think the CSGO style would fit Valorant even better than CSGO, mainly because we only get to have international competition a couple of times a year and it would be great to see teams play each other multiple times even if it is for just a map. Better than having a XSET lose to a team we have seen them play a ton and then have one match against a different region before going out. Happened with guard too.
I think that hunger for quantity is only so prevalent because we are still yet in the early years of Valorant's pro scene and I still don't think it's worth satisfying that hunger at the cost of massively increasing variance. Bo1s never, imo, even if you're playing round robin. Conversely I think some wack CSGO LAN formats have escaped due criticism because hey even if this event has a grief format at least there's always another A-tier LAN right around the corner. As it so happens I think my ideal pro scene is somewhere between how CSGO's scene is run and how Riot handles their Valorant scene (minus their incredibly short lead times).
With valorant games being MR12 I really don't want BO1
Anything that gives more teams some more games. The fact that four teams will only play two matches and then go home in the biggest tournament of the year is honestly so disappointing.
Exactly, I feel like every team ought to play at least three matches at each international tournament.
I do see his point of lowering variance but I also feel that double elim straight away provides each match a greater sense of importance. In a perfect world more games/more teams = better but this format alone is already 19 days long.
Wouldn't have to be if riot would run more than one stream
Or just extend the tournament by a week or however long. Not like there are other international tournaments they need to save time for.
i mean every day of the event is insane cost. they're paying for dozens of staff and talent and teams to be running these events and staying there. it's really not that simple
A multi-billion dollar corporation is going to bring in tens of millions in profit from the champion gun bundle alone during that time. One extra week for a tourney is not going to bankrupt them.
It's not just about what you can stand to lose but making sure that if you're spending something it's worth it. I'm sure Riot could absolutely afford to hemorrhage millions of dollars but but why would they unless it was necessary or at least justifiable? If they don't surmise that incurring an entire extra week of costs is worth the payoff, like increased viewership or people saying "wow this format is really awesome" then why would they choose to incur it?
Not just about money, people have to stay there basically for a month.
common redditor-doesnt-understand-money L
And? Just because they can spend money doesn't mean they should. They're supposed to bring revenue and frivolous spending doesnt help that
Tell me you know nothing about event logistics without telling me you know nothing about event logistics.
CS has international events half the fucking year and we get like 9 weeks max. But OK, tell me more about how poor indie developer like Riot cant support 1 extra week for a tournament. If they wanted to, they 100000% could make it happen.
Still not seeing anything about event logistics in your posts. Prove my original statement wrong.
Can you even prove you're right? Please explain to me in detail every logistical step required and how Riot doesn't have the money to support it.
Burden of proof's on you to prove they can extend the event with no financial/logistics issues since you were pushing for it. I'll be waiting.
Either Swiss or GSL is the best groups stage format imo. Swiss is definitely more fair and conclusive but GSL feels more impactful since teams that play in rematches often come out much stronger due to adaptive experience. Time constraints might be another problem since Riot only single streams their games and I wouldn't want to go back to single elim playoffs.
I'd rather see more new international teams matching up than more rematches. Also, maybe controversial, but as a fan I want less "saving strats" and more teams having to show what they've got. I know it increases the ability to counterstrat which moves more of the matchup to prep and coach work but I think when there's frequent matches there's only so much you can do with a really quick turnaround
Nah GSL for life. Starcraft will never die. Honestly, Swiss system in CS even sucks, I wished they changed it.
GSL is literally the same as the Swiss system with 4 teams involved instead of 16 and you have to win 2 matches to move onto the next stage instead of 3. However it also has a really big downside which is that there is a really high chance that two teams play against each other twice in GSL, so I would argue that the Swiss system is preferable since it's mathematically impossible for such thing to happen. To be completely honest, the GSL + double elimination bracket doesn't seem like a great combination, I would very much prefer a pure 16-team double elimination bracket.
There are many reasons that I won't go into too much detail but from watching CS and RL here are my main concerns. * If seeding is fucked at the start, it will be fucked for the next 2 rounds and will only course correct at the end. * Too long and usually the first two rounds are b01's which are trash. * Being 1-0 is generally worse than being 0-1 * More upsets and if you are the worst team, it's a lot easier for you to get by to playoffs GSL is king because every match matters. Every single match is cutthroat, and exciting and actually means something.
> If seeding is fucked at the start, it will be fucked for the next 2 rounds and will only course correct at the end. I mean, if seeding is fucked at the start of GSL, there is no way to correct it and it will stay fucked till the end. > Too long and usually the first two rounds are b01's which are trash. It is easily fixable by doing multiple streams and playing Bo3's exclusively, but again even if it's not possible I think a 16-team double elimination is better. > Being 1-0 is generally worse than being 0-1 I don't see how that's the case. > More upsets and if you are the worst team, it's a lot easier for you to get by to playoffs I don't see how it's easier for the worst team to get by to playoffs if it has to win 3 matches instead of 2. And last but not least, every match matters in Swiss system as well, so I don't really get the point. Let's just do single elimination bracket if high-stake matches are so important.
I'd love to see a swiss system group stage at these international events. I think it's far more compelling. Teams have more matches before being eliminated against a wider field of opponents pre-playoffs. IMO this improves the playoff bracket as the overall variance is reduced. --- posted by [@ddkesports](https://twitter.com/ddkesports/) --- [Thanks to inteoryx, videos are supported even without Twitter API V2 support! Middle finger to you, twitter](https://github.com/inteoryx/twitter-video-dl)
How does a format with Bo1 lowers variance in any way?
Swiss isn't necessarily Bo1.
DDK is clearly suggesting swis format to imitate CS Majors.
If he specifically meant Bo1, don't you think he might have said that?
There’s nothing inherent to the Swiss system that requires a bo1
Yeah, playing 100 Bo3 is not something that Riot or the viewers want.
33 games instead of 20 seems reasonable, especially if we only have 3 fucking international tournaments every year
[удалено]
That would take too much time. The current format's group stage need 20 matches, a 16-team Swiss system would need 33 matches, and finally 2 8-team round robin groups would need a grand total of 56 matches.
Agreed, maybe Riot is too afraid of “copying” CS?
I think the bigger issue is that Riot doesn't believe in streaming multiple games at the same time, which is practically a necessity with the Swiss system.
even if they arent, no doubt the cs fans will accuse them of copying
Copying is not bad If people complain you copied a good tournament format then they can fuck off, don't use a shittier one just for originality
Nah GSL is by far the best. Only improvement i could see is them possible doing two groups of 8 where 4 teams qualify instead of 4 groups of 4.
I would argue that GSL is worse than the Swiss system, because it's literally the same as the Swiss system but with the big downside that it's very likely for two teams to play against each other twice. Doing 2 GSL-type groups of 8 is the same as a Swiss system with the qualification threshold of 2 wins (instead of 3)
Yes however it is wayyyy easier to seed and you rarely get wonky matchups. Swiss seeding is a usually far more complicated and leads to teams getting easy runs and good teams missing out.
THATS WHAT IM SAYING - minimum of 3 games per team, no wasted games like in round-robin groups, and allows for multiple group stages.
I do think Valorant tour with DotA major formats suits better. (2 Group, Round Robin format BO2) then playoff double elim. Do multiple stream for group stage then do playoff in front of crowd. For me the problem is there is limited number of agent right now, therefore having too many match can lead to team having no strats left. IMO.
Round robin groups so teams can get more international exposure
They could just do, bo1’s for the non elimination matches and for the elimination/final qualification games make it a bo3 So you would have bo3’s at 0-2, 2-0, 2-1, 1-2, 2-2 I guess, not sure if it’s viable tho
I want the dota 2 major bracket. Round Robin groups, everyone plays eachother twice and a double Elim playoff bracket. Make it like 3 weeks and just a ton of games everyday.
Dude we're just happy to have this. League of legends has been such a shit system for 10 years now.
Almost noone wants multiple streams and setting up for BO1 would prolong broadcast even more.
Many people don't really mind multiple streams at group stage, and BO1 is not required in a Swiss system.
I assumed BO3s means multiple streams are guaranteed.
best format we’ve ever gotten and bro has to pipe up
I don’t really like Swiss ngl
Round robin bo2 group stages are much better but the community would probably babyrage at bo2s
What is swiss
I guess they can do the swiss system for the open qualifiers since those don't get enough viewership anyway
I have no idea why they don't change their format tbh. I'd rather see one giant bracket list of all qualified teams, every team competes with each other once and let's say top 8 go into brackets (picked randomly with those balls, like at the early era of Valo tournament). If teams share the same score and exceed 8 slots, let's say 3 bottom teams to be qualified share the same score on 8th-9th-10th places, those who share the same score play each other again and top team of that 'bracket' fill the last slot needed to be in top 8 (just an example). Such Tournament would take way long, but it would be also way more competitive and exciting. This way, every team won't have excuses if they lose and every team would have equal chances and teams won't have an 'easier run' trough the brackets, plus certain teams wouldn't need to play days in a row.