I think eSports misses a truly objective international website, full of assholes who write the truth and make sure that it is packaged nicely.

ESR?

cant get more full off assholes than esr xx

Training them to write the truth could be a bit difficult tho.

the asshole part is surely there

Sadly, when people on this site do try and write the truth these days they are mobbed by the "esports" crowd.

Names like "Tosspot" come to mind.

omg he's hideous!

single elimination can diaf. <3 u anway carmac.

Carmac: If they have double elimination, then I would remove that! That would be the easiest thing to do. I hate double elimination. I think that it's stupid, confusing for outsiders and it kills a great deal of excitement in the matches. You don't get half as excited when watching SK Gaming and mousesports play in an upper bracket semi final or even a final when you compare it to a single elimination quarterfinal where after the game Franz has to pack up his stuff and go back to Austria if he loses.

I agree with this to an extent, but not entirely. For a top tournament like ESL, where top teams are invited, then yes, Single Elimination would be good. We know their top teams, and we get to see them compete with that much more pressure.

But for everything else, I think single elimination is not a good idea. Think of an event like Quakecon, or even an ESWC event, where a new Quake player is just on the scene. In double elimination, he'd play a top player (due to seeding) and lose. He then brings himself back to an extent in the lower bracket, and comes out decently in terms of placing.

Put that concept into Single Elimination, and it's just going to be the same thing over and over. An up and coming player wouldn't get past his first opponent. Assuming the seeds and placing would be the same as single elimination, he'd be knocked out, and would of shown up for nothing. Why would a player that likes to compete, maybe isn't the BEST player in the world, show up to an event when it's going to be single elimination, and he's likely to play a top player like fox/tox/cooller/cypher/jibo/rapha ?

Carmac does great work, I love reading his stuff, but I just disagree with his opinion on this =)

For invite-only tournaments with top 16 players in the world, single elimination is fine. But, for bigger events like Quakecon and (as an example) the WSVG events, keep it double elimination.

=)

I am more against DE (which I find unexciting) than for SE. Mathematically if the players in a DE final are equally skilled, then one has a 75% chance of winning.

I love the ESWC system where group play provides natural seeding. It doesn't always work but is sure much more exciting than double elim.

Double elim, while it is more fair to the players, is a bad idea in major tourneys in my opinion. It's just too dragged out. Single elim feels more epic and it also puts more pressure on the players.

tbh imo they can do LB but without the consolation finals.
aka the ppl who lose 1ce can get 3rd as highest place, while the only 2 ppl who do not lose up till the final are 1 and 2.
That way all games have pressure behind them, but we still have more or less fair results.
Only thing which might happen is that the guy who actually would be the 'real nr2' finishes 3rd. (if we assume everyone always plays at what they are capable of which is false ofcuz but I don't care about that, if you don't play to what you're capable then you deserve to lose anyway)

Double elim is a fairer system for players than most (the league system is even fairer, for example), but it has more disadvantages than advantages imo.

i think a grand final of DE with bo5 and 1 map going to wb winner is quite fair

in 4 maps, who wins more will be the winner
if they are tied, wb winner still hold an adv to be the winner

and it'll be not impossible for lb winner to win
cause imo the fat-tox dahang-tox things are quite discouraging

Single elim is horrible for players, the best player may not win, and IMO, this is more important than "oh if he loses he goes home!"

The best player always wins. If he wasn't the better player how did he win?

luck ?
reminds me of telefragged cooller

Oh please, those cases are rare for a start and secondly the whole match wasn't decided by that one moment and it was his mistake anyway.

Although tournaments usually have more than 4 players, I'll simplify it by using this example as you clearly lack knowledge in tournament structure and general comprehension.

Player A is top skilled, Player B is medium, Player C and D are low. Now, let's say that Player B has to play vs Player A in the first round and Player B is knocked out of the tournament. He goes home. Whereas C/D is further in the tournament and even though he's worse has the chance to make the finals. He didn't earn the position whereas in Double Elim he would have to play vs Player B once he goes down to the lower bracket. Maybe Player B would have the potential to beat Player A by the end of the tournament, but with SE, its just unfair on the players that are a little inconsistant or even unlucky. Single Elim sucks. I don't care if it's more exciting, I want to see the best players in the finals.

Your scenario only proves how poor seeding ruins SE. It also happens to ruin DE in the same way.

Lets through players E and F into the equation. E and F are High and Med respectively and play the opposite side of the bracket to A and B. F happens to win this one, and E has to play B. B loses again.

But now we have a situation where despite having already beaten E, F might have to play E again, and possibly A three times (Lose WB final, beat E again).

You basically didn't solve any problem at all by using DE, just made extra games and taken away a competitive aspect of tournaments.

It's an argument in favour of round robin->SE or group/dual group->SE than it is for DE > SE.

Yep... agree? :)

Japp.

Best player doesn't allways win.

Think hub where you can just spawn right in front of your opponent over and over again.

You have to kill them to get that opportunity. Single Elim is just fatally flawed; do some research or at least have some knowledge of tournament structure before discussing this with me.

Stop talking shit about tournament structure, didn't bring any of such shit up.

Just said that you could spawn in front of you enemy on hub over and over.

Learn to adress the points I make then we'll discuss this any further.

One of 3 maps doesn't cast a player out of a tournament. Unless you want a bo1 structure, it's a stupid point to make.

What the fucking shit are you talking about.

I said that you could spawn in front of your enemy several times on hub.

Nothing less nothing more.

And you start this bullshit conversation about bo3 vs bo1?

Learn to read.

pointless.

Again, you fail at basically.. everything.

Adress the point where I said the best player doesn't allways win on hub.

Nothing else.

play hard go pro

you brought hub first up and now he is the pointless one lol :D

that's not the tournament structures fault is it? that's the gay fucking map and communities fault

fixing shit things in games through tournament structure is just stupid on so many levels and a piss poor argument

single elimination is the best for competition, notice that word competition.

double elimination makes perfect sense for online completion due to the many annoyances of online play but almost zero sense for a well executed serious LAN competition

also, player A > B > C but C > A is a crap argument as well. well seeded group stages eliminate this problem and competition is about being the best at that given moment, double elimination stinks of favouring players that have trouble performing well

I'll also add good seeds in general no matter the system used but in the end it doesn't matter much and wouldn't matter in Quake where the money is always top heavy

if it was well distributed then good players leaving early due to shit seeds is going to be crap but that is no problem and even less of a problem with the ESWC method

that's not the tournament structures fault is it?

I never said it was...

the question in the interview was about tournament structure, we don't want to discuss hub, go away to the q3 forums and post there.

It was a response to YOUR post.

yet you're using it as an argument

the decision between SE and DE is also dependant from the form of the event. i prefere the eswc system anyway, its a great compromise that gives every player enough matches, is fair and still very exciting...
also, a wider money distribution is needed for SE imho

a wider money distribution is needed

I think this is needed regardless of the system used.

I hate seeing tournaments that are so top heavy.

how about money on a map win basis? or something to that effect.

Finally, two others saying this publically. I agree completely with both of you and have been a big time supporter of only using DE when it's a "fun" and/or small tournament . I started a blog about this to post on my site, but I guess I can scrap that idea since people are starting to see the "light" ;)

Ah, the finals in DE, very good point.

WSVG Toronto, Dahang beat Toxic best out of 3 in final, but then had to do it AGAIN (Which he failed to do). I do agree that's unfair.

For events like ESWC Masters, I'm happy seeing single elimination, assuming it's an invite tournament with 16 players. I'd hate to see Quakecon 1v1 tournament at single elimination though. Very unfair to anyone who's not top 16.

and the award for dumbest post in this discussion goes to ...

It is perfectly fair but also boring most of the time.

Agreed.

Hope to see you at Quakecon this year!

Are you allowed at QuakeCons after last years forum "incident"? :)

They have no right to not let me in and participate. I've never attended a Quakeocn event, so I've never signed anything.

It's not that big of a deal to get in anyway. I was banned last year and still got in.

I always felt that to attract the top teams/players, I wanted to give as much content as possible for matches. That's why when I got Q3 back in 06, the committee helped decide group to double elim, so that the players and spectators got to see as much content as possible rather than play and go home after 1 match.

I do agree that it might take a little excitement away, but I always hated to hear about someone flying over from Europe and then playing 1 round and getting eliminated and not having anything to do for 3 more days.

Chris Moncivalles

I always felt that upper bracket matches were not as exciting as single elim because there was no do-or-die factor in them at all (there's always the lower bracket). And lower bracket were not as exciting either because whoever wins has a low chance of winning the tournament anyway.

the whole have to win 2 bo3 finals in order to win the tournament is stupid

if you manage to make it through the lower bracket you should be able to win in one bo3 or one bo5

No that's retarded, what's the incentive on being the wb winner then? Player A who earned to be the WB champion could potentially be beat in the final 1 time like he beat player B yet player B gets the benefit even though they then would have an 'even' record.
It show's no penalty for losing in the first place. The whole luxury of winning the WB is to have the fallback in the finals in case something goes wrong, and you earned the right to have that by winning all the way up until that point. Having one set in the final of a DE is ridiculous

in DE every player gets to lose 1 game.. if the winner-bracket-winner doesnt get that chance... the whole idea becomes stupid

so the person who hasn't last one single set is automatically is given a disadvantage over the guy who has lost one?

nice going sir

it's all about reaching the final

ofcourse everyone will want to do their best to stay in the WB as you'll have to play less games getting to the final and the safety of being able to lose a game and not being eliminated from the tournament

no, no it isn't

it's about creating an even and fair playing field, it doesn't matter which way you look at it yours is not even

if you're going to allow a player to lose and continue until they lose again then you have to allow every player that benefit regardless if it's the final or not

DE up to 3rd place!

afaik a single championship game is used in some real sports tournaments, and it makes sense, since rules are arbitrary anway. Arguing with logic is flawed to begin with.

well, them sports are stupid

competition should create an equal playing field for all players in every respect

if a player in the finals has already lost a game and been allowed to continue then the player who came from the winners bracket should be allowed that also.

Why? If it creates an unfair advantage, then you'd expect players to try to lose the WB final on purpose. Which they don't.

You can also look at it that way: If the guy from the LB manages to win the grand final, both players will have lost 1 game, but the winner will have won the one that counts.

ESWC just need to find a cleaner way to do group games where the chances of players being tied is less likely.

this

but a major problem here is how close the skill gap is for so many players

Best format is round robin into single elim playoffs. You get the best of both worlds -- more matches to watch your favorite player and then the pressure of single elim

if round robin means there is just one group its ok. once you have different groups its a problem as its almost impossible to make even groups

I was always under the impression round robin meant one group :o

unless you have like 20 tournaments going into a seeding within the same year having anything else but double elimination in the playoffs is kind of pointless - no seeding and random draws are even worse. especially if you take in account that prize money is usually top heavy.

just have a look how wcg playoffs usually turn out. eswc is usually not that much better and remember there is no prize money at both tournaments unless you finish top3. apart from wc3 most players tend to win more prize money during the year than they make from salaries.

I don't believe in narrow prize payouts. If we want to make esports professional, then we should work to make it feasible to be semi-pro for as many people as possible. Better this than having 3 millionaires that keep winning all the time.

I would rather have a single elimination best of three than a double elimination "best of one" as well. And as a journalist, I find it more interesting to write about the tragedy of an early final in the semi final than keep trying to find the proper name for the last and the penultimate match in the lower bracket.

TDM/CTF would probably be better for that than 1v1.

not sure whether you find it hard to believe but there is not that much money into esports to do that right now

What a fascinating individual.

<3 Carmac!

Pro gaming is a fad. It should of stayed the way it was pre 2000

interviewing an interviewer or how to poo in the poop

another thing that would help esports is good interviews...
this was refreshingly good :)

the reason why esports are dying it's not economic, the fact is that software houses aren't able anymore to deliver potential esport games.
we're in 2009 and we're still talking about q3, starcraft, wc3, cs... all games developed between 1998 and 2002...
what happened in this 7 years?
has the coming of always better consoles moved the developers attention into a more user friendly approach to videogames?
a new generation of gamers that don't care about playing competitively but only having fun while playing?
the overwhelming pressure of web application and related contents has moved pc users far from videogames?
why mmorpg like WoW have so much success?
these are questions that need answers in an inteview :)

Casual games began to sell better than the skill games. That's what happened.
So atm developers must be pretty insane to make a hardcore shooter when they can make so much more money by makeing My Little Pony!

I'd say it's just pathetic. They are not even trying or willing to give people options. You can have one and the same game play completely different, just tweak the settings like mods do, but the damn developers are just to lazy to include this into their games.

Have settings for newcomers and have settings for people who prefer a different style of play, like they got used to in the past.

Very blah.

"Carmac: I would not call the CGS's shutdown a moment of joy."
the next picture says it all. great job there! xD

who cares

don't you guys get tired of interviewing each other over and over.
soon there will be another djWheat interview, and then another run at the top quake players etc etc

yeah, I'd much rather read an interview with you.

or with you

go check your own website :>>

Carmac There's nothing worse in life than waking up one day and coming to a conclusion that you're awesome. There's nothing else to do then than to stop evolving.

<3

Esports has a better future than normal gaming. Almost all game creators today are perfectioneers rather than originators. Gaming possibilities are not infinite. Closer to the ceiling we get, the more difficult originating becomes.

Carmac, if you ever want to do a piece without worrying about borderlines or treading on toes, eSports.ie would be happy to hear from you

:D