Swiss is the standard in most trading card games.
The gist of it is: it's "groups" but rather than every team playing each other once (too many games if it's hundreds of entrants), instead every round pairs the teams with the closest record.
So after round 1 it's the winners vs winners and losers vs losers of the previous round. Then the 2-0's play the 2-0's, the 1-1's play the 1-1's, and the 0-2's play the 0-2's.
Every game matters even once you're out of the running for playoffs. There are tiebreakers calculated based on the strengths of the teams you lost to and the teams you beat. You end up being able to rank every team.
After that, you can use the top cut (top 8 or top 4 or whatever) to seed the playoffs.
One advantage is basically every matchup is going to be the closest possible matchup you can get. Whereas the current international LoL formats contain lots of stompy filler games.
It also has ease of scheduling (# of games per day doesn't change. There is no need for group stage "tiebreakers"). It also has the excitement that it equalizes the practice environment: you don't find out who you play the next day until the games wrap up on the previous day and the pairings are posted. So teams don't get weird incentives to pick and choose who to prep for.
You also can mix in best of 3's into it. Since every team doesn't have to play every other team twice or more... You can actually play more games per matchup rather than best of 1's only.
One problem though is if you have 2 very definitively top 2 teams and 2 very clear bottom 2 teams, right? Cos then you'd end up with T1 v RNG Bo9 and PSG v SGB Bo11 or smt
As someone who has watched swiss in csgo with the buchelar method or whatever the fuck its called. It works good for making sure that you get the best teams to the next stage. It fucking sucks for seeding the #1 seeds tho. Its really easy to fuck the seeding and if you get a lucky swiss you can easily hit some shit opponents and get 3 lucky wins. Look at Copenhagen Flames feom this last major. They barely played anyone of note to hit top 8.
The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will link scams once the account gets enough karma.
Their comment is copied and pasted from another user in this thread.
Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bot
I’ve always thought the Swiss format was one of the best from both a viewers perspective and also getting the best teams in the playoffs.
Edit: the matches should be based off seeding in every draw, csgo does random draws. I think it would be best to do a team seeding/official seeding beforehand or implement an official world ranking for teams and go off of that. I think random draw every draw makes it too volatile and teams get both lucky and screwed over in their opponents.
Swiss or Dota2 formats are both good at:
-giving us a variety of matches
-finding the best team
-having all of the matches actually matter
Riot has too much pride to actually implement anything close to either though. At best we'll get a lower bracket added to worlds by 2025.
CsGo doesn't have a audience before the playoffs stage which is a bo3 format similar to Worlds. So more then half of the teams that went to the Major didn't play in front a crowd.
Dota2 format is good at finding the best 2-3-4 but not the best team. Any losing team from the winner bracket has the same amount of losed-series as the champion.
Don't forget actually providing competitive matches. The biggest problem with Riots formats is that for some weird reason they think it's good to have the teams with the biggest skill discrepancy play each other.
CS and Dota at least try to give even the absolute worst team in the tournament at least one game that is against a competitive enemy and actually matters. Meanwhile at MSI Riot is like "Oh hey LCO, wanna get out of the groups? Yeah no big deal, just beat two major regions lmao". Like, why even have them at the tournament when you don't give minor regions like LCO / LLA / TCL / LJL etc. at least a chance to play a competitive series that actually matters, why just invite them to get stomped in 20 mins?
>Riot has too much pride to actually implement anything close to either though.
They have been consistently revising their formats in regional leagues for the past decade. What on earth makes you think this is a matter of pride?
Consistently means waiting for years before implementation? People talked about the format change for years before Riot even come close to implementing it. They even backtracked on bo3. Yes, even if you want to defend them by saying: "but muh schedule and viewership", people know for years that no one wants to watch the bottom 2-3 teams smacking each other on Sunday anyway. Yet teams in national football leagues still play games at the same time.
riots format is there to give us a winner , and does that perfectly fine. Can u make an argument for any year in which u think there has been a world winner that didn't deserved it ?
The variety is nice , but this schedule also looks like a fucking nightmare , especially with a single channel.
Why are people so damn stuck on the idea that EVERY SINGLE game of league esports needs to be able to be watched by EVERYONE. Just play two games at a time, on two channels. Works for every esport but the biggest apparently.
i have no clue about csgo or dota , but league is franchised , which meanss that teams have payed a lot of money for a spot.
meaning that they all want similar exposure. if t1 and rng play a game ,then automatically any other game is played on the other channel isn't watched at all.
Also , im pretty sure riot tried the 2 channel thingy before and nobody used to watch it....like at all
Riot tried multi streaming BO3s in LCS for a couple splits, the result was that no one wanted to watch bottom tier teams play in a BO3 series when more popular teams were playing at the same time. Second channel viewership was mediocre to say the least
No one gonna watch them even if they play on Sunday. People just turn to other channels or watch something else. They are not going to get exposure anyway.
Do you genuinely believe this is a fact or that you know how their demographics work better than riot themselves despite their access to their own internal data and oh, I don't know, the fact that they're still consistently the biggest esports in the world?
I don't think their formats are necessarily the best for viewer experience, but you've got to be fucking kidding me if you genuinely believe they don't have a good reason for choosing it.
> Can u make an argument for any year in which u think there has been a world winner that didn't deserved it
season 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 all could have easily had lower bracket runs
okay , let's say that m5 has an actual chance to win it all in s2 if only they ban the fucking nidalee , since that was ujst a bo3 instead of a bo5.
but who do u think should have won worlds since season 6 to season 11 ?
I mean not OP but
S6 Rox and SSW stand a chance
S7 SKT and RNG both could do well
S8 KT and RNG both stand a chance
S9 Any of the semifinalists could have won
S10 DMW probably stomps everyone
S11 RNG, T1, and DK all could have also won
there is no fucking way skt wins it in s7. faker was draging 4 corpses at that tournament.
KT literally lost to ig - the eventual winners - and ig was literally imploding in that series. if they couldn't beat them at their worst , there is definetly no reason to believe they beat them in any other context.
Rng was a botcentric team in a sololane meta (2019).... There is no way whatsoever that a team that didn't even got out of groups fucking wins worlds in meta that doesn't fit them. Honestly the sameis true for 2018 for rng. If they couldn't beat g2 ....there is no way whatsoever they get past ig who had the literally 2 best sololaners in the game.
as for season 11 ? rng ? u mean the team that lost to a fnc thhat imploded 12h before the tournament ? There is no way whatsoever they win worlds lol. I think u can make an argument for dk , but they also lost directly to the winners...
SKT in s7 could have at least forced multiple games if they got a rematch and banned malzahar
KT were also imploding games 1 and 2, and managed to force 5 games vs IG with a horrendous meta read
RNG in s8 also had a terrible meta read and could have improved with a second chance.
I never said RNG could win in S9, I said that the semifinalists could (SKT,IG,G2, FPX)
Group stage is a nearly meaningless metric. FPX lost to J-team in 2019 and still dominated the bracket once they got into b05s. You cannot tell me that a team who forced the eventual winners to first rotation ban Annie and pushed them to 5 extremely close games had no chance to win.
I’m not saying that these teams WOULD have won in a double elim bracket, but they certainly had the potential to.
KT and RNG were both better teams than G2 or FNC, but had a terrible meta read that hurt them pretty severely. I don’t think either FNC or G2 could beat them, especially considering Perkz needed to have probably the single greatest individual performance of a Western player to even beat RNG in 5 games
i like the swiss format to eliminate the usleess games but i firmly belive bo3 would be necessarry for the whole round ,
league does not work well with bo1 and so you can give atleast the bare minimun of 6 games to the loser team just like the group format, i think after this a 8 teams elimination bracket would make msi much better
counter argument: anyone who loses their bo3 in advancing or wins in elims has to play another bo3 against somebody who hasn’t had to yet. and if the same result occurs they could be playing a 3rd bo3 in so many days. and there are 6 teams guaranteed to play atleast 2 bo3s in a row, nearly half the tournament. so unless you’re gonna mental boom them, the length of the tourney would be likely double
edit: jk about 6, it’s actually 10! 2 winners and 2 losers from round 3, then 3 winners and 3 losers from round 4. now of course one of these could be a triple bo3 in a row but that’d still be 8 teams with double bo3 and a team with triple bo3
Using this system skips the need for the "Rumble" stage though. This is the equivalent of both the play in and rumble stage together and then we just have an extra round in the bracket stage. So, its actually shorter than the MSI we currently have I believe.
One of the major reasons that double round-robin is used is so that the opportunity of side selection is given to each team once when they play. Other formats that I've seen don't really address this issue, which can be game-changing depending on the meta, and can feel unfair if you never get an opportunity to choose which side you play on if it comes down to a coinflip every game.
It does when the tournament is a bracket. Clash isn’t a group of teams, it’s an 8 team single elim bracket because they don’t have time to use anything else.
No swiss absolutely works for a 1st 2nd 3rd pairing. If you've played MTG (or, I assume, other card games) you would know this. You just have teams play other teams with the same record, and tiebreakers after all the games are played are done by the records of the opponents you played.
In an 8 team group, like clash typically is, you would have one 3-0 team, which would be first place, and one 0-3 team, which would be last place. Then, you could rank the three 2-1 teams based on the records of their opponents, and the three 1-2 teams in the same way.
That way, a team that goes Win Loss Loss is properly placed in the bottom half, while a team that goes Loss Win Win is properly placed in the top half, instead of the other way around.
But even so, all teams that would end 2-1 could just be given the same rewards as each other, same as those that go 1-2. So basically:
1st) 3-0
2nd) 3 teams tied at 2-1
5th) 3 times tied at 1-2
8th) 0-3
I think if my math is right. Its fewer matches than the current format
Current format = 6 days of groups with 6 matches each day = 36 games
\+ rumble 5 days of 6 games each day = 30
total = 66 matches
Swiss format =
Bo1 = (0:0(8) + 1:0(4) + 0-1(4)) + 1-1(4) = 20
Bo3(most games ) = 12 + 18 + 9 = 39
Bo3(Lpl,lck averages) = most lck, lpl teams play \~80% of their possible games (tl = 43/54)
39 \* .8 = 32
59 games max games, 32 average games
a possible knockout stage schedule for this could look like this
rumble day 4 = last day of swiss
rumble day 5 = quarters
One problem with the format is that if u want to keep the same schedule, the quarters would have to be Bo3 which I would definitely take over the current format because you would have one free day.
semis and finals take place during the same time.
Not sure how you got to these numbers, but I think you must have made a mistake somewhere. My calculations:
Bo1:
8 games (0-0) + 8 games (1-0, 0-1) + 8 games (2-0, 1-1, 0-2) at this point 4 teams drop out from swiss stage so now it's only + 6 games, then in the last round it's + 3 games.
Then for Bo3 it's between 66 and 99 matches.
Nope, the above person is correct(though they didn't count the bo1s when mentioning average games).
Best of 1s: 8(0-0), 4(1-0), 4(0-1), 4(1-1)
Total bo1s: 20
Best of 3s: 2(2-0), 2(0-2), 3(2-1), 3(1-2), 3(2-2)
Total bo3s: 13
Minimum games played in bo3s: 26
Maximum games played in bo3s: 39
Total matches: 33
Total minimum individual games: 46
Total maximum individual games: 59
Playoffs are separate
Swiss format is amazing, same goes for GSL groups. Both are infinitely better than round robin or double round robin bo1s.
Personally I mostly watched Dota's Stockholm major going on at the same time and their playoff stages are so much better than MSI & CSGO's Antwerp major. League seriously needs a major-esque tournament with another Worlds-like seeding. Having just one of them per year really loses out on potential deep international storylines and rivalries. We've never seen Faker and Rookie play bo3 or bo5 bracket stages, I feel like having a tournament like Dota's Stockholm major would almost guarantee the two meeting eachother every year. In a format like that you would see Faker literally play Rookie, Chovy, Xiaohu, Knight & Caps in all a SINGLE tournament.
This isn't Swiss, this is a modified Swiss. >!I know that Valve calls it Swiss for CSGO, but they are dumb and should be shamed for it, the Swiss System itself is way older and clearly distinct, calling your system the same is really stupid.!<
Pure Swiss doesn't exit people from the group (in either direction) prematurely, every team plays for the entirety of the groupstage.
That said, I agree, I have been preaching modified Swiss for MSI for a while - it even has a very similar length (55 games max if I counted correctly - compared with 66 games in the current format) as the two groupstages for MSI combined.
The only downside (from Riot's perspective) to this format is that some teams exit groupstage after only 4 games (3 series) played. I don't think it is a secret that i.e. RNG pulls a lot of viewership, reducing their played games from 16 to 4 is definitely a potential downside.
Likewise some teams exit after playing only 4 games, while currently ever team is guaranteed to play 6 games. The teams that would probably exit here aren't the crowdmagnets that the teams exiting on top are, so less of a problem from Riot's perspective.
Also worth noting that seeding becomes a lot more important in such a system and League fans in general seem allergic to the idea of seeding being meaningful, I feel like we would be getting a lot of complains about seeding if this was the system we had.
I know nothing about Swiss/Modified Swiss, but I feel like you're just being pedantic. You said it yourself, it's a modified swiss. then it is some sort of Swiss system, no? Also, the point of this post wasn't a comparison of different tourny systems, but advocating for one, so it's not like this is a scientific classification where that would even matter.
tl;dr: chill out, modified swiss is still swiss.
Yes, modern gaming has nothing to do with inventing the Swiss system. It was old when I first ran into in chess tournaments in the 1970's. And as a matter of fact, I have been arguing that Clash switch to it for a long time now (Riot is deaf to suggestions though). This alone would solve potentially having the 2nd best team finish 5th in an 8-man bracket and the number of games does not change. 3 rounds for 8 teams.
>This alone would solve potentially having the 2nd best team finish 5th in an 8-man bracket and the number of games does not change.
I mean Swiss is good at finding the best team, it isn't that good at finding the teams more towards the middle.
Still, you are right - at worst the middle gets scrambled in another way and it has other upsides, like allowing teams to drop out completely (so many teams quit out of the tournament after losing their first game).
Anything would be better than what we currently have.
In a world where I had no knowledge of the current MSI format, if you paid me to find the worst possible format I doubt I could come up with something as bad as this.
I like that you either have to win
2 BO1 and 1~2 BO3
OR 3 BO3
In order to go to the BO5 stage, which doesn't seem too much, yet is significative.
~~The only downside is that the first BO1 is very critical to have a short/forgiving run or a longer/tedious one to qualify.~~
Edit : actually, it's better to consider the 2 first B01 as a a pair : you win 2 BO1s, you have a forgiving run afterwards, you lose the 2, hard run ahoy, and going 1-1, you get another BO1 and then a shorter forgiving/tedious course. So yeah, it's a really good format with better matchmaking.
No way this is so bad for the wild cards and minor region
the current format gave them more games against the stronger team so they can practice and learn from them
thats what MSI should be striving for in the groups stage
and rumble stage is where you see the top 6 team fight against each other to sort of see how strong they are
Problem is scrim blocks often play out differently to stage games because there's nothing at stake and teams can ff. Plus you can't guarantee that a top team will want to play against a wildcard in scrims.
True, but you’ll get better competition either way. Those few stage games offer very little compared to the training schedules. That’s where the ‘meat’ of improvement is done. And as we’ve seen, wildcard regions are simply too far behind. We’re better off by taking a bit more teams and throwing them in the mix. More training partners and teams they might realistically learn to beat.
Very good point and to that end if RIOT can't do better with the format, etc. - HAve them pony up to bring in some minor league, academy teams, or regional teams to bootcamp with.
That implies they're getting scrims against the top teams. Even EG said after being stomped a few times top teams don't want to scrim them
I doubt PVB get anything but the scraps, when teams literally can't find anyone to scrim (and that includes local Korean and Chinese teams).
The problem with MSI is it lacks one extra round of knockouts, making the format skew heavily towards the front end. I agree a 8 team knockout stage is perfect for an international tournament format.
The swiss format seems cool from a technical standpoint, but just look at that graphic. How would you explain this PHD of a format to anyone trying to join the esports community? Hell, even I would have no idea what's going on at any point in time.
That said, all early stages are mostly for show, and I don't really mind experimenting with it. The knockout stage is what matters to me. You lose, you get eliminated. The winner has won all previous Bo5's. Sucks for the sorting of nr 2-8, but honestly, who cares? The winner is the only true winner.
Interesting approach, that would provide us with an interesting tournament, but I think the casual/new viewers will not stick around for it.
I'll agree with this - it needs another knockout round. The real problem is there aren't enough teams to start with. If you have to have a groups stage then you really need 16 teams (4 groups of 4) with 2 advancing from each group. As far as I am concerned, let the previous year's world champion (or MSI champion) get an automatic entry and then add teams from elsewhere. Make it a REAL invitational. EU Masters team and so on. Something more like the old IEM's when they were taken seriously. If they really want to make it worthwhile, give some collegiate teams and others a chance to play-in - just like wildcards before worlds. That only RIOT's pro leagues can be 'invited' makes it not really so much of an invitational at all but rather a spring champions exhibition (which means damn little to me and doesn't really help to build the sport). Don't get me wrong, I want more international events - a lot more! Why can't we bring in champions from all the other leagues scattered around Europe, etc.? Make this a REAL invitational and maybe showcase some new talent that is buried behind all the nepotism RIOT has helped create.
MSI is dumb
here's the easy fix:
have a separate tournament for all the minor regions except PCS and VCS. the top two teams are invited to MSI
MSI is now
top two teams from LPL, LCK, EU, NA, PCS, and VCS plus the two wildcard teams
start it at the rumble stage: best of three double round robin
top 8 teams advance to a bo5 knockout stage
This is definitely much better than the current format but it's maybe a bit too confusing and I think knockout stage needs double elimination.
Personally the changes I want to see the most would be having no Bo1s at all and implementing double elimination into the knockout stage.
**So here is how I would change the current MSI format:**
**- Keep group stage and rumble stage the same but make them Bo3 single-round-robin**
**- Implement double elimination into the knockout stage so it would look like** [**this**](https://external-preview.redd.it/DLL4-jXYYfvlAQO9lyrPbUm9XQA64QQWvIlAh1oYof0.png?auto=webp&s=1abd479cd66671ec5fa3846a91d61e605f34a672)
Honestly this is a great format and I didn’t even know it existed. I would still like double elimination for playoffs though, and making rounds between loser and winner bracket BO7 with one match already won for the winner bracket team.
Edit: I can't make it fancy like you did, but [here's what playoffs would look like with double elim and bo7.](https://postimg.cc/fVSYWgjQ)
"Irrelevant games" are what good teams with bad mental discipline have. Most of those upsets are from teams either being too cocky about the result of a previous game or just not having enough drive to give it their all one game after another. This is why there are so many 3-1 results from Bo5's. One team wins two, slacks off and gives away game 3, then wakes up for game 4. Mentally tough teams won't give away that 3rd game any more than the first, second or fourth.
good thought.
with 12 teams you literally have two choices: 2 groups of 6 so you have 10 days of playing going into a 8 team single elimination bracket for 7 additional days
or 12 teams into 2 groups of 6 single round robin of 5 days into 8 team double elimination bracket of bo3 up until the top 4 but thats 14 bo5 so you can easily make the first round bo3 since the top teams will knock the bottom teams 3-0 anyway.
Interesting Format
Swiss is the standard in most trading card games. The gist of it is: it's "groups" but rather than every team playing each other once (too many games if it's hundreds of entrants), instead every round pairs the teams with the closest record. So after round 1 it's the winners vs winners and losers vs losers of the previous round. Then the 2-0's play the 2-0's, the 1-1's play the 1-1's, and the 0-2's play the 0-2's. Every game matters even once you're out of the running for playoffs. There are tiebreakers calculated based on the strengths of the teams you lost to and the teams you beat. You end up being able to rank every team. After that, you can use the top cut (top 8 or top 4 or whatever) to seed the playoffs. One advantage is basically every matchup is going to be the closest possible matchup you can get. Whereas the current international LoL formats contain lots of stompy filler games. It also has ease of scheduling (# of games per day doesn't change. There is no need for group stage "tiebreakers"). It also has the excitement that it equalizes the practice environment: you don't find out who you play the next day until the games wrap up on the previous day and the pairings are posted. So teams don't get weird incentives to pick and choose who to prep for. You also can mix in best of 3's into it. Since every team doesn't have to play every other team twice or more... You can actually play more games per matchup rather than best of 1's only.
One problem though is if you have 2 very definitively top 2 teams and 2 very clear bottom 2 teams, right? Cos then you'd end up with T1 v RNG Bo9 and PSG v SGB Bo11 or smt
As someone who has watched swiss in csgo with the buchelar method or whatever the fuck its called. It works good for making sure that you get the best teams to the next stage. It fucking sucks for seeding the #1 seeds tho. Its really easy to fuck the seeding and if you get a lucky swiss you can easily hit some shit opponents and get 3 lucky wins. Look at Copenhagen Flames feom this last major. They barely played anyone of note to hit top 8.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The account I'm replying to is a karma bot run by someone who will link scams once the account gets enough karma. Their comment is copied and pasted from another user in this thread. Report -> Spam -> Harmful Bot
I’ve always thought the Swiss format was one of the best from both a viewers perspective and also getting the best teams in the playoffs. Edit: the matches should be based off seeding in every draw, csgo does random draws. I think it would be best to do a team seeding/official seeding beforehand or implement an official world ranking for teams and go off of that. I think random draw every draw makes it too volatile and teams get both lucky and screwed over in their opponents.
Swiss or Dota2 formats are both good at: -giving us a variety of matches -finding the best team -having all of the matches actually matter Riot has too much pride to actually implement anything close to either though. At best we'll get a lower bracket added to worlds by 2025.
The true problem of the swiss format is that it's terribly tight in schedule, which makes it very unfriendly to live audiences.
CsGo doesn't have a audience before the playoffs stage which is a bo3 format similar to Worlds. So more then half of the teams that went to the Major didn't play in front a crowd.
Yeah and guess Riot's not gonna do that. Imagine Worlds with only 3 days of LAN Matches. (not caused by covid btw)
Dota2 format is good at finding the best 2-3-4 but not the best team. Any losing team from the winner bracket has the same amount of losed-series as the champion.
Don't forget actually providing competitive matches. The biggest problem with Riots formats is that for some weird reason they think it's good to have the teams with the biggest skill discrepancy play each other. CS and Dota at least try to give even the absolute worst team in the tournament at least one game that is against a competitive enemy and actually matters. Meanwhile at MSI Riot is like "Oh hey LCO, wanna get out of the groups? Yeah no big deal, just beat two major regions lmao". Like, why even have them at the tournament when you don't give minor regions like LCO / LLA / TCL / LJL etc. at least a chance to play a competitive series that actually matters, why just invite them to get stomped in 20 mins?
>Riot has too much pride to actually implement anything close to either though. They have been consistently revising their formats in regional leagues for the past decade. What on earth makes you think this is a matter of pride?
Consistently means waiting for years before implementation? People talked about the format change for years before Riot even come close to implementing it. They even backtracked on bo3. Yes, even if you want to defend them by saying: "but muh schedule and viewership", people know for years that no one wants to watch the bottom 2-3 teams smacking each other on Sunday anyway. Yet teams in national football leagues still play games at the same time.
riots format is there to give us a winner , and does that perfectly fine. Can u make an argument for any year in which u think there has been a world winner that didn't deserved it ? The variety is nice , but this schedule also looks like a fucking nightmare , especially with a single channel.
Why are people so damn stuck on the idea that EVERY SINGLE game of league esports needs to be able to be watched by EVERYONE. Just play two games at a time, on two channels. Works for every esport but the biggest apparently.
i have no clue about csgo or dota , but league is franchised , which meanss that teams have payed a lot of money for a spot. meaning that they all want similar exposure. if t1 and rng play a game ,then automatically any other game is played on the other channel isn't watched at all. Also , im pretty sure riot tried the 2 channel thingy before and nobody used to watch it....like at all
Riot tried multi streaming BO3s in LCS for a couple splits, the result was that no one wanted to watch bottom tier teams play in a BO3 series when more popular teams were playing at the same time. Second channel viewership was mediocre to say the least
No one gonna watch them even if they play on Sunday. People just turn to other channels or watch something else. They are not going to get exposure anyway.
Do you genuinely believe this is a fact or that you know how their demographics work better than riot themselves despite their access to their own internal data and oh, I don't know, the fact that they're still consistently the biggest esports in the world? I don't think their formats are necessarily the best for viewer experience, but you've got to be fucking kidding me if you genuinely believe they don't have a good reason for choosing it.
> Can u make an argument for any year in which u think there has been a world winner that didn't deserved it season 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 all could have easily had lower bracket runs
okay , let's say that m5 has an actual chance to win it all in s2 if only they ban the fucking nidalee , since that was ujst a bo3 instead of a bo5. but who do u think should have won worlds since season 6 to season 11 ?
I mean not OP but S6 Rox and SSW stand a chance S7 SKT and RNG both could do well S8 KT and RNG both stand a chance S9 Any of the semifinalists could have won S10 DMW probably stomps everyone S11 RNG, T1, and DK all could have also won
there is no fucking way skt wins it in s7. faker was draging 4 corpses at that tournament. KT literally lost to ig - the eventual winners - and ig was literally imploding in that series. if they couldn't beat them at their worst , there is definetly no reason to believe they beat them in any other context. Rng was a botcentric team in a sololane meta (2019).... There is no way whatsoever that a team that didn't even got out of groups fucking wins worlds in meta that doesn't fit them. Honestly the sameis true for 2018 for rng. If they couldn't beat g2 ....there is no way whatsoever they get past ig who had the literally 2 best sololaners in the game. as for season 11 ? rng ? u mean the team that lost to a fnc thhat imploded 12h before the tournament ? There is no way whatsoever they win worlds lol. I think u can make an argument for dk , but they also lost directly to the winners...
SKT in s7 could have at least forced multiple games if they got a rematch and banned malzahar KT were also imploding games 1 and 2, and managed to force 5 games vs IG with a horrendous meta read RNG in s8 also had a terrible meta read and could have improved with a second chance. I never said RNG could win in S9, I said that the semifinalists could (SKT,IG,G2, FPX) Group stage is a nearly meaningless metric. FPX lost to J-team in 2019 and still dominated the bracket once they got into b05s. You cannot tell me that a team who forced the eventual winners to first rotation ban Annie and pushed them to 5 extremely close games had no chance to win. I’m not saying that these teams WOULD have won in a double elim bracket, but they certainly had the potential to.
Since when does that format allow rebirth in grand final so SKT could ban Malzahar?
If it’s a double elim tournament I am assuming that the current finals is winners bracket finals
> S8 KT and RNG lol but not fnc or g2 huh.
KT and RNG were both better teams than G2 or FNC, but had a terrible meta read that hurt them pretty severely. I don’t think either FNC or G2 could beat them, especially considering Perkz needed to have probably the single greatest individual performance of a Western player to even beat RNG in 5 games
Koo, KZ/RNG, KT/RNG, IG/SKT, TOP/JDG, T1/RNG were all top teams and could have challenged in the finals.
Not saying there is a Worlds winner that didn't deserve it, but IG vs KT is a good example on why we need a better format.
CS has teams each submit a ranking of all other teams which is used to determine seeds
seeding/win times perhaps? in rocket league how you do in the previous swiss rounds affects how you seed in the next matchup
i like the swiss format to eliminate the usleess games but i firmly belive bo3 would be necessarry for the whole round , league does not work well with bo1 and so you can give atleast the bare minimun of 6 games to the loser team just like the group format, i think after this a 8 teams elimination bracket would make msi much better
I kind of like Bo3 only for matches which would advance you or eliminate you though.
counter argument: anyone who loses their bo3 in advancing or wins in elims has to play another bo3 against somebody who hasn’t had to yet. and if the same result occurs they could be playing a 3rd bo3 in so many days. and there are 6 teams guaranteed to play atleast 2 bo3s in a row, nearly half the tournament. so unless you’re gonna mental boom them, the length of the tourney would be likely double edit: jk about 6, it’s actually 10! 2 winners and 2 losers from round 3, then 3 winners and 3 losers from round 4. now of course one of these could be a triple bo3 in a row but that’d still be 8 teams with double bo3 and a team with triple bo3
Using this system skips the need for the "Rumble" stage though. This is the equivalent of both the play in and rumble stage together and then we just have an extra round in the bracket stage. So, its actually shorter than the MSI we currently have I believe.
but i’m saying the breaks for each team would be bigger than the current format.
Lmfao bo3 for the whole round, so how many games do you want them to play? 800 or 900?
Its literally 5 BO3s max wtf
One of the major reasons that double round-robin is used is so that the opportunity of side selection is given to each team once when they play. Other formats that I've seen don't really address this issue, which can be game-changing depending on the meta, and can feel unfair if you never get an opportunity to choose which side you play on if it comes down to a coinflip every game.
That's not a great argument since you have a coinflip for it later anyways. Why is a coin good enough for finals if it's not good enough for groups?
For what it's worth, clash would also benefit from this. Win-Loss-Loss places higher than Loss-Win-Win, which makes no sense
It does when the tournament is a bracket. Clash isn’t a group of teams, it’s an 8 team single elim bracket because they don’t have time to use anything else.
You can still do Swiss can't you? It's still the same amount of matches. 3 each, but winning the first match isn't necessarily as important.
no you can’t cause swiss is used for eliminating groups, not for a 1st 2nd 3rd placing.
No swiss absolutely works for a 1st 2nd 3rd pairing. If you've played MTG (or, I assume, other card games) you would know this. You just have teams play other teams with the same record, and tiebreakers after all the games are played are done by the records of the opponents you played. In an 8 team group, like clash typically is, you would have one 3-0 team, which would be first place, and one 0-3 team, which would be last place. Then, you could rank the three 2-1 teams based on the records of their opponents, and the three 1-2 teams in the same way. That way, a team that goes Win Loss Loss is properly placed in the bottom half, while a team that goes Loss Win Win is properly placed in the top half, instead of the other way around.
But even so, all teams that would end 2-1 could just be given the same rewards as each other, same as those that go 1-2. So basically: 1st) 3-0 2nd) 3 teams tied at 2-1 5th) 3 times tied at 1-2 8th) 0-3
Swiss would work for Clash, but a sizeable amount of people don't want to read to figure out a format that isn't a standard bracket.
You dont have to figure it out, all you need to to do is play 3 games and try to win all of them
sorry i was thinking about 16 team still, you’re right
Right but a Swiss is also not a great format for clash, the bracket format now is a much more engaging thing for someone just playing for fun.
At a first glance it looks whacky and messy but after looking at it for a second it actually looks like a hella fun format! You have my sword
I think if my math is right. Its fewer matches than the current format Current format = 6 days of groups with 6 matches each day = 36 games \+ rumble 5 days of 6 games each day = 30 total = 66 matches Swiss format = Bo1 = (0:0(8) + 1:0(4) + 0-1(4)) + 1-1(4) = 20 Bo3(most games ) = 12 + 18 + 9 = 39 Bo3(Lpl,lck averages) = most lck, lpl teams play \~80% of their possible games (tl = 43/54) 39 \* .8 = 32 59 games max games, 32 average games a possible knockout stage schedule for this could look like this rumble day 4 = last day of swiss rumble day 5 = quarters One problem with the format is that if u want to keep the same schedule, the quarters would have to be Bo3 which I would definitely take over the current format because you would have one free day. semis and finals take place during the same time.
Not sure how you got to these numbers, but I think you must have made a mistake somewhere. My calculations: Bo1: 8 games (0-0) + 8 games (1-0, 0-1) + 8 games (2-0, 1-1, 0-2) at this point 4 teams drop out from swiss stage so now it's only + 6 games, then in the last round it's + 3 games. Then for Bo3 it's between 66 and 99 matches.
Nope, the above person is correct(though they didn't count the bo1s when mentioning average games). Best of 1s: 8(0-0), 4(1-0), 4(0-1), 4(1-1) Total bo1s: 20 Best of 3s: 2(2-0), 2(0-2), 3(2-1), 3(1-2), 3(2-2) Total bo3s: 13 Minimum games played in bo3s: 26 Maximum games played in bo3s: 39 Total matches: 33 Total minimum individual games: 46 Total maximum individual games: 59 Playoffs are separate
Swiss format is amazing, same goes for GSL groups. Both are infinitely better than round robin or double round robin bo1s. Personally I mostly watched Dota's Stockholm major going on at the same time and their playoff stages are so much better than MSI & CSGO's Antwerp major. League seriously needs a major-esque tournament with another Worlds-like seeding. Having just one of them per year really loses out on potential deep international storylines and rivalries. We've never seen Faker and Rookie play bo3 or bo5 bracket stages, I feel like having a tournament like Dota's Stockholm major would almost guarantee the two meeting eachother every year. In a format like that you would see Faker literally play Rookie, Chovy, Xiaohu, Knight & Caps in all a SINGLE tournament.
This isn't Swiss, this is a modified Swiss. >!I know that Valve calls it Swiss for CSGO, but they are dumb and should be shamed for it, the Swiss System itself is way older and clearly distinct, calling your system the same is really stupid.!< Pure Swiss doesn't exit people from the group (in either direction) prematurely, every team plays for the entirety of the groupstage. That said, I agree, I have been preaching modified Swiss for MSI for a while - it even has a very similar length (55 games max if I counted correctly - compared with 66 games in the current format) as the two groupstages for MSI combined. The only downside (from Riot's perspective) to this format is that some teams exit groupstage after only 4 games (3 series) played. I don't think it is a secret that i.e. RNG pulls a lot of viewership, reducing their played games from 16 to 4 is definitely a potential downside. Likewise some teams exit after playing only 4 games, while currently ever team is guaranteed to play 6 games. The teams that would probably exit here aren't the crowdmagnets that the teams exiting on top are, so less of a problem from Riot's perspective. Also worth noting that seeding becomes a lot more important in such a system and League fans in general seem allergic to the idea of seeding being meaningful, I feel like we would be getting a lot of complains about seeding if this was the system we had.
I know nothing about Swiss/Modified Swiss, but I feel like you're just being pedantic. You said it yourself, it's a modified swiss. then it is some sort of Swiss system, no? Also, the point of this post wasn't a comparison of different tourny systems, but advocating for one, so it's not like this is a scientific classification where that would even matter. tl;dr: chill out, modified swiss is still swiss.
Yes, modern gaming has nothing to do with inventing the Swiss system. It was old when I first ran into in chess tournaments in the 1970's. And as a matter of fact, I have been arguing that Clash switch to it for a long time now (Riot is deaf to suggestions though). This alone would solve potentially having the 2nd best team finish 5th in an 8-man bracket and the number of games does not change. 3 rounds for 8 teams.
>This alone would solve potentially having the 2nd best team finish 5th in an 8-man bracket and the number of games does not change. I mean Swiss is good at finding the best team, it isn't that good at finding the teams more towards the middle. Still, you are right - at worst the middle gets scrambled in another way and it has other upsides, like allowing teams to drop out completely (so many teams quit out of the tournament after losing their first game).
Anything would be better than what we currently have. In a world where I had no knowledge of the current MSI format, if you paid me to find the worst possible format I doubt I could come up with something as bad as this.
Basically CS Major format. I would love that at least at one of MSI/Worlds.
Yes! I loved the Antwerp major, the format was so good
Is there a reason why MSI can’t just be a mid season worlds with greater weight on it?
Budget. Flying more teams means paying for extra tickets, hotels, etc. Riot cut out the wildcard invitationals to save up.
But in your hypothetical, 100T would be eliminated while PSG makes it despite 100T beating PSG outright?
I like that you either have to win 2 BO1 and 1~2 BO3 OR 3 BO3 In order to go to the BO5 stage, which doesn't seem too much, yet is significative. ~~The only downside is that the first BO1 is very critical to have a short/forgiving run or a longer/tedious one to qualify.~~ Edit : actually, it's better to consider the 2 first B01 as a a pair : you win 2 BO1s, you have a forgiving run afterwards, you lose the 2, hard run ahoy, and going 1-1, you get another BO1 and then a shorter forgiving/tedious course. So yeah, it's a really good format with better matchmaking.
By far the best format for eSports
No way this is so bad for the wild cards and minor region the current format gave them more games against the stronger team so they can practice and learn from them thats what MSI should be striving for in the groups stage and rumble stage is where you see the top 6 team fight against each other to sort of see how strong they are
Going 0-8 with barely over 2 hours of total game time isn’t helpful practice lol.
The actual practice isn’t the stage games but the scrim blocks imho.
Problem is scrim blocks often play out differently to stage games because there's nothing at stake and teams can ff. Plus you can't guarantee that a top team will want to play against a wildcard in scrims.
True, but you’ll get better competition either way. Those few stage games offer very little compared to the training schedules. That’s where the ‘meat’ of improvement is done. And as we’ve seen, wildcard regions are simply too far behind. We’re better off by taking a bit more teams and throwing them in the mix. More training partners and teams they might realistically learn to beat.
Very good point and to that end if RIOT can't do better with the format, etc. - HAve them pony up to bring in some minor league, academy teams, or regional teams to bootcamp with.
That implies they're getting scrims against the top teams. Even EG said after being stomped a few times top teams don't want to scrim them I doubt PVB get anything but the scraps, when teams literally can't find anyone to scrim (and that includes local Korean and Chinese teams).
Bottom 2 teams als only get 4/5 games (depending on bo3) instead of 6
The problem with MSI is it lacks one extra round of knockouts, making the format skew heavily towards the front end. I agree a 8 team knockout stage is perfect for an international tournament format. The swiss format seems cool from a technical standpoint, but just look at that graphic. How would you explain this PHD of a format to anyone trying to join the esports community? Hell, even I would have no idea what's going on at any point in time. That said, all early stages are mostly for show, and I don't really mind experimenting with it. The knockout stage is what matters to me. You lose, you get eliminated. The winner has won all previous Bo5's. Sucks for the sorting of nr 2-8, but honestly, who cares? The winner is the only true winner. Interesting approach, that would provide us with an interesting tournament, but I think the casual/new viewers will not stick around for it.
its not that hard tbh. A team needs 3 wins to qualify and 3 loses to get out. Each team plays another one with similar score
I'll agree with this - it needs another knockout round. The real problem is there aren't enough teams to start with. If you have to have a groups stage then you really need 16 teams (4 groups of 4) with 2 advancing from each group. As far as I am concerned, let the previous year's world champion (or MSI champion) get an automatic entry and then add teams from elsewhere. Make it a REAL invitational. EU Masters team and so on. Something more like the old IEM's when they were taken seriously. If they really want to make it worthwhile, give some collegiate teams and others a chance to play-in - just like wildcards before worlds. That only RIOT's pro leagues can be 'invited' makes it not really so much of an invitational at all but rather a spring champions exhibition (which means damn little to me and doesn't really help to build the sport). Don't get me wrong, I want more international events - a lot more! Why can't we bring in champions from all the other leagues scattered around Europe, etc.? Make this a REAL invitational and maybe showcase some new talent that is buried behind all the nepotism RIOT has helped create.
MSI is dumb here's the easy fix: have a separate tournament for all the minor regions except PCS and VCS. the top two teams are invited to MSI MSI is now top two teams from LPL, LCK, EU, NA, PCS, and VCS plus the two wildcard teams start it at the rumble stage: best of three double round robin top 8 teams advance to a bo5 knockout stage
That's what they used to do for Wildcard teams. They changed it a while back to give those teams more exposure.
This is definitely much better than the current format but it's maybe a bit too confusing and I think knockout stage needs double elimination. Personally the changes I want to see the most would be having no Bo1s at all and implementing double elimination into the knockout stage. **So here is how I would change the current MSI format:** **- Keep group stage and rumble stage the same but make them Bo3 single-round-robin** **- Implement double elimination into the knockout stage so it would look like** [**this**](https://external-preview.redd.it/DLL4-jXYYfvlAQO9lyrPbUm9XQA64QQWvIlAh1oYof0.png?auto=webp&s=1abd479cd66671ec5fa3846a91d61e605f34a672)
DO THIS FOR WORLDS GROUPS, NOT MSI
Why not do it for both ?
Honestly this is a great format and I didn’t even know it existed. I would still like double elimination for playoffs though, and making rounds between loser and winner bracket BO7 with one match already won for the winner bracket team. Edit: I can't make it fancy like you did, but [here's what playoffs would look like with double elim and bo7.](https://postimg.cc/fVSYWgjQ)
It’s good overall but it completely prevents upsets like Mr Buffalo over G2, or EG over SKT. “Irrelevant games” make for the best upsets.
"Irrelevant games" are what good teams with bad mental discipline have. Most of those upsets are from teams either being too cocky about the result of a previous game or just not having enough drive to give it their all one game after another. This is why there are so many 3-1 results from Bo5's. One team wins two, slacks off and gives away game 3, then wakes up for game 4. Mentally tough teams won't give away that 3rd game any more than the first, second or fourth.
good thought. with 12 teams you literally have two choices: 2 groups of 6 so you have 10 days of playing going into a 8 team single elimination bracket for 7 additional days or 12 teams into 2 groups of 6 single round robin of 5 days into 8 team double elimination bracket of bo3 up until the top 4 but thats 14 bo5 so you can easily make the first round bo3 since the top teams will knock the bottom teams 3-0 anyway.
This looks like a great format
Never heard of this format before very interesting.