Flexible Set Lengths

[Bones0]

There has been a general push towards more bo5 sets recently, but it's been met by resistance either from TOs who are concerned with time constraints or players/streamers who don't like wasting time and energy sitting through a predictable 3-0. Trying to draw an arbitrary line in the tournament to start doing bo5s is difficult because it depends on how many good/bad players entered, how many setups there are, what other events are going on, etc. So instead of deciding if bo5 should be all tournament, 2nd round of pools, bracket only, or top 8, I came up with the simple idea of having flexible set lengths, or flex set for short (and no, that doesn't mean buff Smashers or Falcon mains will have an advantage).

flex set: If a set goes to 1-1, it is extended to a best of 5.

Simply put, flex sets are only best of 3 unless both players win 1 of the first 2 games. If the set goes to 2-0, then the set is over. If one player wins game 1 and his opponent wins game 2, the set is tied at 1-1 and gets extended to a bo5. It works sort of similar to a "win by 2" rule in tennis and other sports, but to prevent it from going on forever the set is capped at 5 games.

I should mention that I think at some point in the tournament, probably at top 8 or semis like most tournaments, all sets should become bo5 regardless of how the set starts out. I don't think, for example, that a GF set should ever be a bo3 even if one of the players loses on their first cp. Flex sets are designed to extend bo3s, not to shorten bo5s.

Since players will be banning stages for the bo3 part of the set, if it gets extended to a bo5 (which normally do not have bans), you simply use Bones's Stupid Rule: You cannot ban the same stage twice. In my ruleset (see sig), bans are temporary and do not last the entire set. This means if your worst stage is FD and you win game 1, you can ban that for game 2, but if the set gets extended, you will have to ban a different stage for your opponent's next counterpick. This keeps stages from being replayed while still giving each player an equal amount of potency in their counterpicks.

Benefits:
- Reduces variance by giving equally matched opponents more games.
- Mismatched opponents are not playing longer than is necessary.
- Saves more time than making all sets bo5.
- If applied to the entire tournament (as I think it should be), it gives even the lowest level players a chance to have a bo5 set if they are able to take a game.
- Is simple to understand and implement (sets are bo5 unless you win the first 2 games).

Let me know what you guys think.

 

[Vestboy_Myst]

i think it should just be bo5 straight up if the rules are going to change. maybe reduce 8:00 to 6:30, 7:00.

bo5 gives a better statistical spread in theory. its a bit backward to take just the first two data points and apply them to the rest of the sets if just one more win would end it. it also eliminates any chance for a player to come back fairly after losing two in a row.

 

[Bones0]

i think it should just be bo5 straight up if the rules are going to change. maybe reduce 8:00 to 6:30, 7:00.

bo5 gives a better statistical spread in theory. its a bit backward to take just the first two data points and apply them to the rest of the sets if just one more win would end it. it also eliminates any chance for a player to come back fairly after losing two in a row.

I'd rather have all bo5 too, but I realize that TOs, streamers, and players in general have fairly solid reasons for not wanting to play bo5, especially when you start talking about round robin pools matches. Flex sets don't eliminate any chance for a player to come back after losing two in a row because bo3s never had a way to come back after losing two in a row.

 

[Yeroc]

How are you going to mitigate the fact that transitioning from a Bo3 to a Bo5 gave one player a stage ban and the other no longer gets one because it's a Bo5 now?

 

["YOLO"]

How are you going to mitigate the fact that transitioning from a Bo3 to a Bo5 gave one player a stage ban and the other no longer gets one because it's a Bo5 now?

Because if you don't get to ban means that you lost in you best CP or that you already won the set 3 - 1 or 2 - 0.

if the set goes to 3 - 2 both already had the opportunity to ban 1 stage each.

Am I right 0Bones??

 

["YOLO"]

And I think it would be really nice.
It is practical = viable. And it does proves better someone being better than the other.

 

[Bones0]

How are you going to mitigate the fact that transitioning from a Bo3 to a Bo5 gave one player a stage ban and the other no longer gets one because it's a Bo5 now?

Sorry, I think I made the whole ban part confusing. There are no "manual" bans, but with BSR you cannot cp the same stage twice so your first cp is, for all intents and purposes, banned. This prevents sets from having stages played twice when a player "breaks serve", such as M2K going back to FD if he loses the first time. I edited the post to clarify this, so lmk if it is still unintuitive the way I explained it. I think I'm pretty bad at explaining these sorts of things.

Because if you don't get to ban means that you lost in you best CP or that you already won the set 3 - 1 or 2 - 0.

if the set goes to 3 - 2 both already had the opportunity to ban 1 stage each.

Am I right 0Bones??

Again, not actual bans, but you're right about the concept. The only time someone won't get a ban is if they've already won the set or lost 2-0.

 

[GCS Gaming Customs]

This is awesome Bones0. Its quite frustrating too to get knocked out of a tourney to another player in the matter of a few minutes just because they 2-1 you. It feels like the struggle of pushing through and overcoming your weaknesses factor is significantly nerfed when the set is bo3

 

[Prince_Abu]

lol this is a great idea actually

 

[Popopidopop]

The obvious problem here being that the time consuming sets are pools when it's random low-skill floaty vs floaty. Allowing them to go a bo5 wastes ALOT more time (possibly 2x 8 min) then having X top tier player beat X medium lvl spacie one more game earlier in bracket. So having all bracket be bo5 probably takes less time and provides more accurate results.

 

[Bones0]

The obvious problem here being that the time consuming sets are pools when it's random low-skill floaty vs floaty. Allowing them to go a bo5 wastes ALOT more time (possibly 2x 8 min) then having X top tier player beat X medium lvl spacie one more game earlier in bracket. So having all bracket be bo5 probably takes less time and provides more accurate results.

Well yeah, if you're going to compare a floaty pools match to a bracket spacie match between uneven opponents, ofc the latter is going to go faster. By contrast, if you have a spacies pool match it will end in about 5 minutes vs. a high level floaty ditto which take forever. Pools matches tend to have much quicker matches because the worse players can't DI, get gimped constantly, SD, and are generally not evenly matched to begin with. When you get high level floaties living super long, matches become much longer than any pool match. I just can't see how a small % of pools matches getting extended will not be made up for by the majority of bracket matches being bo3, especially when you start taking into account the stream waiting for specific matches because they have to sit through an extra 4 minutes of someone getting 3-0'd.

Even if it takes longer, I don't see how doing bo5 through bracket provides better results. Without extended sets in pools, players are more likely to get upsetted when you have 1st vs. 2nd seed, and out all of the 2-0s through bracket, VERY few would have seen a 3-game comeback (especially after losing on their best cp) so it isn't really affecting bracket matches at all.

 

[Yeroc]

So by removing stage bans, you basically allow people to slob their most powerful counterpick, which would have been ordinarily banned in a Bo3, maximizing the likelihood that more sets will go to game 3, meaning a 4 or 5 game set quite possibly the majority of the time, but from the standpoint of similitude to the current ruleset, it's a Bo3 with 2 warmup games in the middle effectively making games 2 and 3 irrelevant and simply increasing the game count of most sets. Am I following you correctly?

Admittedly I'm being a little pedantic, but the practical upshot of this idea, for most players in the mid-level skill range, that it's just increasing the number of games mid level players play against each other in tourney. Which is all well and good for those people, but it's a logistical nightmare. 5-10 minutes tacked onto every single set would have a significant effect on the lead times of our events.

 

[Bones0]

So by removing stage bans, you basically allow people to slob their most powerful counterpick, which would have been ordinarily banned in a Bo3, maximizing the likelihood that more sets will go to game 3, meaning a 4 or 5 game set quite possibly the majority of the time, but from the standpoint of similitude to the current ruleset, it's a Bo3 with 2 warmup games in the middle effectively making games 2 and 3 irrelevant and simply increasing the game count of most sets. Am I following you correctly?

Admittedly I'm being a little pedantic, but the practical upshot of this idea, for most players in the mid-level skill range, that it's just increasing the number of games mid level players play against each other in tourney. Which is all well and good for those people, but it's a logistical nightmare. 5-10 minutes tacked onto every single set would have a significant effect on the lead times of our events.

A wrote a bunch of stuff explaining why we should have hard cps first, but considering bo3s currently have 2nd hardest first, I think I can work with that. Instead of saying "no counterpicking the same stage twice", I will go back to the original rule of "you cannot ban the same stage twice". Thus, you will play the bo3 part of the set the same as we currently do. Fair?

 

[Massive]

I feel like this is an idea that mostly benefits the spectators. They would get to watch longer sets between high level players.

Most participants are not high level players though, what this basically does for them is negates the first two matches of the set if they go 1-1. You are offering a free reset to every single set if they go evenly those first two.

This can be good or bad. I honestly feel like it would be a negative effect, whereas before you would only need to win one more match to defeat your opponent, now you have to win two more. If you only eeked out a victory before in those 1-1 sets, it could very well change your outlook, morale, and expectations of the next matches.

I think what this would mostly do is weed out mid-level players of technical characters, which require more directed physical effort to play effectively, and give the advantage to people whose characters are not as physically demanding.

 

[Yeroc]

I don't have time to consider all the possibilities, but that sounds right, bones.

 

[Bones0]

I feel like this is an idea that mostly benefits the spectators. They would get to watch longer sets between high level players.

Most participants are not high level players though, what this basically does for them is negates the first two matches of the set if they go 1-1. You are offering a free reset to every single set if they go evenly those first two.

This can be good or bad. I honestly feel like it would be a negative effect, whereas before you would only need to win one more match to defeat your opponent, now you have to win two more. If you only eeked out a victory before in those 1-1 sets, it could very well change your outlook, morale, and expectations of the next matches.

I think what this would mostly do is weed out mid-level players of technical characters, which require more directed physical effort to play effectively, and give the advantage to people whose characters are not as physically demanding.

The first two matches aren't negated though. You are ahead in the counterpicks which is just as important as if the set had been a bo5 from the beginning. If you are really the better player, then you should never be upset with the set being extended as it only decreases the chance of an upset.

I also don't understand how this discriminates against more technical characters. If you're just saying that it's easier to play non-technical characters for longer periods of time, then that's obvious, but that's already the case. If you can't play a bo5 without your hands getting tired, frankly you just need to play more. lol

 

[pkblaze]

Disclaimer, I'm very new to competitive smash and I mostly watch streams/youtubes of tournaments.

But I don't really see the point in this. It extends sets between mid-level players who might have advanced one of two more rounds beyond that match that they lost 1-2 but could have won 3-2. That's kinda cool for their personal victory, or they could just lose the set 1-2 and go play friendlies. And while **** like Fly's Sopo comeback in game 5 at KoC3 is amazing to watch, that doesn't actually happen too often. It logistically doesn't make sense to allot that much more potential time for every match based on time constraints, the hype matches that could come from this rule are probably a 1 in 10 chance at best, and it kind of does a disservice to both the TOs and the people who would end up in the latter end of the bracket due to unnecessarily extending the run time of a tournament. Imagine how long Apex would have taken if we had this rule. We might have needed an extra day to get **** done.

 

[GrownCannoli]

As a stream viewer I would like to see this implemented for maybe top 32 or something like that. Just stopping by to show support.

Also, this is nothing to do with sets but I would like to see a increase in the entry fee. Local weekly Magic the Gathering tournaments pay out better than your big events that come around once a couple months.

( I know people want to play more than one game at an event and it gets expensive, but that's a poor excuse if you ask me)

 

[Kidney Thief]

Great Idea, I think a lot of thought went into it and find this thread wise

 

[Vizc]

Not dismissing this as a bad idea, but something that could come up, in the second game, the loser of the first, no matter the margin, now has to win three games while the winner only has to win this one.

On the winner side, the second game can potentially used to relax a bit.

Could be pretty discouraging for some people.

And now I feel stupid for not reading post dates.

 

[SAUS]

Not dismissing this as a bad idea, but something that could come up, in the second game, the loser of the first, no matter the margin, now has to win three games while the winner only has to win this one.

On the winner side, the second game can potentially used to relax a bit.

Could be pretty discouraging for some people.

I can see that, but either way, losing game 1 means that you have to win game 2 or you lose. If you win game 2, the set become even. If it is a regular best-of-3, either of you only has to win 1 more game, but with flex sets, either of you has to win 2 more games.

 

[Bones0]

Not dismissing this as a bad idea, but something that could come up, in the second game, the loser of the first, no matter the margin, now has to win three games while the winner only has to win this one.

On the winner side, the second game can potentially used to relax a bit.

Could be pretty discouraging for some people.

And now I feel stupid for not reading post dates.

I can see what you're getting at, but the way you worded it ("only has to win this one") kind of ignores the fact that the opponent already won once. The way I see it, if you trade games 1 and 2, the rest of the set works just like a bo3: first to 2 wins. I'd imagine game 2 would actually be the opposite of a chance to relax for the winner of game 1. They would want to win the set right then and there. If they lose game 2, the set basically gets evened up. The only benefit to winning game 1 instead of game 2 is you have the counterpick advantage, which is the same thing that occurs in normal bo5s.

 

[menotyou135]

I went to a Halo tournament that did this. It worked out well for them (considering Halo matches go between 7 and 15 minutes on average).

Our team would have lost a Bo3 on the first round because we lost games 2 and 3, but we won 4 and 5 to win the set. Didn't come into play again for us until like WR 4 or 5.

 

[AnEnemyMongoose]

I have been looking for a ruleset like this for soooo long! Thank youuuuuuu!

 

[815633]

great idea

 

[Drewthedude64]

Interesting. I'd love to see this applied somewhere.

 

[Lupin]

I think it's really a good idea. And in the long run, this format makes every set more important. A top player that is playing good will play less games than a top player that is not playing that good.

 

[-ACE-]

I've never seen this thread. I don't like this idea at all. I recently beat Tipman's Ganon after being down 4 stocks to 1. How are stocks and games that much different? I don't think the set count length should fluctuate. Comebacks happen, and they're hype af and good for the game imo. I really think most people should pay less attention to their instincts that tell them "I know player X will 3-0 player Y" and just see what happens, even if it's mew2king vs doodoohead69. I don't see anything wrong with bo5 for semis/WF/GF. The sets at Xanadu are considerably less hype with bo3 GF sets imo. This is melee. Anything can happen. Play it out.

 

[Bones0]

I've never seen this thread. I don't like this idea at all. I recently beat Tipman's Ganon after being down 4 stocks to 1. How are stocks and games that much different? I don't think the set count length should fluctuate. Comebacks happen, and they're hype af and good for the game imo. I really think most people should pay less attention to their instincts that tell them "I know player X will 3-0 player Y" and just see what happens, even if it's mew2king vs doodoohead69. I don't see anything wrong with bo5 for semis/WF/GF. The sets at Xanadu are considerably less hype with bo3 GF sets imo. This is melee. Anything can happen. Play it out.

Please read the whole first post. lol

 

[-ACE-]

Please read the whole first post. lol

I did, and didn't lol.

 

[Bones0]

I did, and didn't lol.

Idk how your criticism is relevant to what I'm proposing if you read this:

I should mention that I think at some point in the tournament, probably at top 8 or semis like most tournaments, all sets should become bo5 regardless of how the set starts out. I don't think, for example, that a GF set should ever be a bo3 even if one of the players loses on their first cp. Flex sets are designed to extend bo3s, not to shorten bo5s.

 

[-ACE-]

Idk how your criticism is relevant to what I'm proposing if you read this:

My criticism may not be relevant. In fact, it may be downright stupid to some. I'm just saying I re-read and still didn't get it. I promise it's not a big deal that I don't agree with this lol. I can see this idea is backed with good intentions, I just stated my opinion. I don't think there's really a right or wrong here, but I'm fine with being wrong. It's just my opinion.

 

[Bones0]

My criticism may not be relevant. In fact, it may be downright stupid to some. I'm just saying I re-read and still didn't get it. I promise it's not a big deal that I don't agree with this lol. I can see this idea is backed with good intentions, I just stated my opinion. I don't think there's really a right or wrong here, but I'm fine with being wrong. It's just my opinion.

The gist of your complaint seemed to be that you don't want your sets being cut short because you lost the first 2 games, but my point is that flex sets should only be applied to sets that would normally be bo3 anyway (in which case you have no chance to come back regardless).

 

[-ACE-]

The gist of your complaint seemed to be that you don't want your sets being cut short because you lost the first 2 games, but my point is that flex sets should only be applied to sets that would normally be bo3 anyway (in which case you have no chance to come back regardless).

So how is saving time one of your main points? I just think it's fine how it is.

 

[Kadano]

I used flexible set lengths at a number of locals I hosted, but stopped doing so about half a year ago. The problem was that in sets where one of the players knew that he could clutch it out at the end, he played worse or did more janky stuff on purpose and lost a match, just so that he would have more matches to practice for the later rounds by making a bo5 out of the would-have-been bo3.

Now I don't want to say that this is a problem in general, maybe people in most other regions don't do that. I just want to say that it is a possible result of the rule.

 

[Respect38]

So how is saving time one of your main points? I just think it's fine how it is.

I believe that he's saying that it would save time vs. a push to make almost everything Bo5, while still permitting sets that need the Bo5 to be extended for it.

There's basically two extremes: have everything be Bo5 or have only the very deep sets be Bo5. Flexible length is a compromise that takes the benefit of having extra matches for close sets from the former, and the benefit of saving time from the latter.

 

[-ACE-]

I believe that he's saying that it would save time vs. a push to make almost everything Bo5, while still permitting sets that need the Bo5 to be extended for it.

There's basically two extremes: have everything be Bo5 or have only the very deep sets be Bo5. Flexible length is a compromise that takes the benefit of having extra matches for close sets from the former, and the benefit of saving time from the latter.

I get it, I just don't agree with it being a good idea. And no matter how many times someone quotes my posts, my opinion won't change. I don't see why it's such a big deal. I guess I didn't express my opinion very well.

 

[A Scrub]

I used flexible set lengths at a number of locals I hosted, but stopped doing so about half a year ago. The problem was that in sets where one of the players knew that he could clutch it out at the end, he played worse or did more janky stuff on purpose and lost a match, just so that he would have more matches to practice for the later rounds by making a bo5 out of the would-have-been bo3.

Now I don't want to say that this is a problem in general, maybe people in most other regions don't do that. I just want to say that it is a possible result of the rule.

This seems like a problem that could happen a lot.