World championship format

[Dai]

I think I understand your point about scouting before the games. But I would say the scouting is also part of the games. All other sports (i.e. Football etc) involved scouting and match preparation for your next opponent. So perhaps hero lock (with/or side board) instead of deck lock as you proposed would be sufficient enough, if it is deemed neccesary by majority.

Hero lock seems a great idea to me

[Raphael Majere]

Well, i don't agree with all of the statements here, i want to give my 2 cents.
For the swiss rounds, i don't like having 2 decks and playing 4 games. I want to clarify this, what i don't like is the scouting before the games, is some game outside the game that don't focuses on the game itself but to counter what you opponent is more likely to play, so, for me it'll be fine to register 2 decks and play the swiss portion of the tournament with that 2 games but with no scouting involved.

I think I understand your point about scouting before the games. But I would say the scouting is also part of the games. All other sports (i.e. Football etc) involved scouting and match preparation for your next opponent. So perhaps hero lock (with/or side board) instead of deck lock as you proposed would be sufficient enough, if it is deemed neccesary by majority.

A way to improve the next WC would be to inform every participant that scouting exists and also informing everyone on how to scout, ie Simply key in your opponent's ign into 'search'.

If a player's ign cannot be searched, it's not being fair to everyone.

Lastly, IMHO, the dates/times of the announcement of each Swiss rd's brackets should be fixed way before the Swiss rd starts, this allows everyone to start 'scouting' at the 'same' time, giving every individual an 'equal' amount of time to scout each other's games.

I am getting ahead of myself. I am merely giving suggestions here. All in all, in my books, GDC did a fantastic job at organizing WC.

[Direwulven]

Perhaps a trial or pop-up double-elimination tourney can be organised on a small scale to test its feasibility. Based on the wiki article from Sisyphos, there would certainly be additional admin work for TO especially on a scale of 32 players.

[Master_Savage]

I think Single Elimination was Perfect for the finals imo.

[Dai]

I think Single Elimination was Perfect for the finals imo.

Well, having battled for about 2 monts, losing 2 games in a BO3 and getting out feels pretty bad i think, having a 2nd chance is better IMHO

[Sisyphos]

And... NO one should ever say soccer... serious, its football:

Ah, now i get what OgAusp was saying. Yea in school we learn british english over here, but i guess i spent too much time around 'Mericans afterwards to keep my language clean.

I don't know what to do with people dropping out of the late rounds because they feel they no longer have a chance, this also was a source of a large number of auto wins. Maybe a formal I've quit process so they don't get matched with an opponent for a couple rounds until GDC gets fed up and drops them? Or maybe everyone that finishes all their matches can get an exclusive foil / badge / something in game.

I find this is a great idea. An incentive like that to finish your rounds and tie-breaker scores would be a lot less skewed.

1. No shows. After sign-up is done, the TO can send out test PMs for registered people to respond. Those people who does not respond or takes over 4 days to respond, remove them.

2. Ensure that getting onto IRC is a must. It simply makes things easier. It was a nasty PITA for me to arrange some matches with people who did not have IRC. It's not my opponent's fault really, but I found it extremely silly since I am so used to IRC.

1. A simple "Yes, i didn' sign up on a whim and no, i haven't already forgotten about it." is indeed not too much to ask for and would surely limit the amount of no-shows.

2. Though i had my share of players who didn't use irc or anything other than challonge / forum pms to schedule matches, i don't think that making chat presence mandatory is a good move. Let's face it, you are really only in a position to make that demand if a chat room is an in-built function of your game.

Perhaps a trial or pop-up double-elimination tourney can be organised on a small scale to test its feasibility. Based on the wiki article from Sisyphos, there would certainly be additional admin work for TO especially on a scale of 32 players.

I recently used a double elimination bracket for a private foosball tourney with 8 teams (wasn't the host, only the guy people trust to keep track of things (and not cheat in favor of his own team (fools!))) and found it relatively convenient even when drunk. Yes, it's more work than single elimination but still not very complicated and imo totally worth the effort when the event is big enough that people look forward to it and adjust their whole weekend schedules just to be there.

Well, having battled for about 2 monts, losing 2 games in a BO3 and getting out feels pretty bad i think, having a 2nd chance is better IMHO

Exactly.

[Sisyphos]

Or alternatively, after swiss, there could be a preliminaries with 8 groups of 4 players who have to play each other. First and second ranked players of each group would advance to the knock-out stage.

[iClipse]

I agree with about everything sisyphos said. Though, I have to add, that when playing double elimination, I don't think a bo5 would be good, since things will then just take too long. Especially considering you have to do an extra round in the end (or even two). Right now I already played for about 4 hours for JUST TWO best of 5s. I don't think I could play longer than that, at least not at my best. I now already made a single error which almost costed me the last game.

Anyway, other than that, I'm all for double elimination.

[FlyingFerrari]

I agree with about everything sisyphos said. Though, I have to add, that when playing double elimination, I don't think a bo5 would be good, since things will then just take too long. Especially considering you have to do an extra round in the end (or even two). Right now I already played for about 4 hours for JUST TWO best of 5s. I don't think I could play longer than that, at least not at my best. I now already made a single error which almost costed me the last game.

Anyway, other than that, I'm all for double elimination.

Can't belive that no one has changed your senior member title yet

[Sisyphos]

This just occured to me, but one of the coolest imaginable prizes for winning a wc would be that you get to design a card of your own; nothing brokenly good and in agreement with the design team of course. Could exist only 1x, or be very rare, or at least be somehow related to the world champ through artwork, flavor text, etc.