So I realized that before watching this video from way back, I had never actually thought of a Grand Finals using going for 2/3 games with 3/5 rounds versus the usual 3/5 games with 2/3 rounds.
Brainstorming on the 2/3 Game w/ 3/5 Round format (3G5R):
Both formats have the same minimum (6) and maximum (15) number of rounds that can be played.
3G5R may be more marathon-like with its longer rounds and less in-between-round breaks.
3G5R allows for one counter-pick per player max while 5G3R allows for two.
3G5R produces more salt from the loser (see Valle).
Does anyone have thoughts on the 3G5R format, or possibly have had experience in a tournament or match run with it? Do you feel it has any benefits over the 5G3R format and worth trying out?
I had also thought of a finals format that could be used time-constrained situation, First to 5 rounds:
FT5R has a minimum of 5 and maximum of 9 rounds, 1 less min and 6 less max rounds than the usual.
By default it allows for no counter-picking, but a rule like “your allowed to change characters every two losses” could solve that.
[*]Players and fans of a game running on the format may feel cheated and feel it’s anti-hype, but if the TOs feel they need to hurry things up (running overtime, closing up shop, higher turnout games need to get run, etc), it’s a way to get things done quickly.
I don’t know if anyone has thought or used this before. Any thoughts on it and if you think it could be worth experimenting with?
It simply doesn’t work that well, it isn’t that simple.
Unless the game is played as a 3/5 rounds by default (like Tekken) there’s a lot of changes in the way a 3/5 round game is played. Mostly a 3/5 round game has it’s own meta-game which differs from the same game played with 2/3 rounds. For example the way meter is managed is different with 3/5 rounds etc.
the whole 2\3 and saving your meter for the last round has been a tournament staple for 15-16 years now, you’re not going to undo all of that history with a new system. Thats the way SF has been before it went mainstream.
mvc2\mvc3 deserve a regular 3\5 system because of how the game is played. mvc2\mvc3 will play 3 rounds max. For sf4 a player could play 6 rounds max. There is no meter saving system in marvel, you always start off with default @ the end of each round
for games where meter transfers over to the next round, it would really mess up the game pretty bad. Games that don’t transfer meter over per round could be expanded upon IMO like mvc3. That game really gets the stiff end of a tournament system because a SF player can have so many chances to make an adjustment. Most of the time in marvel, you HAVE to adjust after tge first round or you can be done. A SF player can lose 3 rounds in a row and then finally have to be on the fence about strategy.
i’ve been saying it since the mvc2 days. Marvel will always be the hardest game out because of the way our tournaments are ran. You have to know so much about the game because the tournament rules are so unforgiving. You can lose 1 round in mvc3 against some weird and shit and all of a sudden you have maybe a minute to think of a counter? a sf player can play some weird style that first round and still experiment for counter position for 2 more rounds before actually having to play hard!
once you explain how a SF tournament match can play out and how a marvel tournament match plays out, people usually immediately understand the differences in the system. Its definitely something to consider imo. Most of the marvel players I’ve talked to don’t have a problem with a 3\5 system and the only good counter argument I’ve heard is a possible time constraint.
iirc, there was even a few tournaments towards the end of mvc2 where 1 tournament match was a 3\5 so its not like the system has never been tried before
I see what you mean as in a different meta-game, but what makes it not “work that well” besides players being unfamiliar to the format? Is it that the established meta-game could be changed drastically or removed?
I understand that the 2/3 round format and the 3/5 game, 2/3 round system for finals have been a staple in round-based fighters for a long time now, and I’m not here to try and change that, nor do I want to.
I’m just trying to see the merits of the and alternative systems, and if they are in and of themselves systems worth discussing.
Mostly because even though it doesn’t seem too much of a deal, this is a change that will affect overall match-ups and strategies between certain characters pairings. It’s like you’ll have to have a 2/3 Guile and a 3/5 Guile strategy in place, and that itself would add into extra match-up knowledge which would require a different training approach as well.
Characters who build meter faster would bully characters with less meter building capacities effectively in SFIV for example, that would become a bigger factor in tier listing for example. Honestly it’s a bit hard to explain it but it’s harder to maintain certain strategies mindsets for a longer period, it’s easier to burn all options.
Cuz maybe a short burst Makoto that could obtain a huge edge outta a Dhalsim in 2/3 would get an uphill battle against a 3/5 which will have even more time to adapt and effectively keep her out longer and easier.
The game could be played with 3/5 rounds? Sure, but it would be better if all rounds of a tournament would be played in the same fashion, making all characters effective.
I could see that match-ups could become quite different in the 3/5 game format. In 3S, for example, I don’t see a Genei Jin Yun doing much - if anything - different in 3/5 than in 2/3 (though I could be wrong). But for someone like a Hyper Tornado Sean, with his long 1 stock, the 3/5 format could actually make such SA and even characters viable (HC combo xx HT takes half you life easy, something Sean would find a blessing).
While some 2/3 strategies may not convert well over to 3/5 (secret or gimmick tech will have more time to be adapted to and countered), some tactics could possibly thrive and new ones will develop with the change in meta-game.
While true that a get-in-your-two-wins-now kind of characters and play-styles would have a rougher time if their tactics can’t last though the additional rounds, someone like an ST O.Hawk could use the extra time to adapt to a zoner’s game and be able to make better reads, get in, and punish, for example.
I guess it could be seen as a better format of those who can be consistent for longer periods, have strategies that can endure longer games, or have enough short-term strategies to swap out and do the same.
Yes, I agree, as from what you said earlier, having to have 2/3 and then suddenly a 3/5 strategy set could be a lot to handle.
The only thing would be that having a 1 game with 3/5 rounds is shorter and doesn’t allow for counter-picks, which I’m not sure many would like, and 2/3 games with 3/5 rounds take longer to go though in pools and brackets, leading to possible time constraints. Pending any other solutions, the latter is the better option. But I’m not sure many would like to get sent home in a double-elimination after only two rounds, however many games they may have in them.
I had read though your thread, and while I agree that Marvel-style games could use 3/5 games so it’s more fair to the player, it could take to long to run as Marvel games are typically long (2-3 minutes-each long).
Sure, PotMonster46 vs Top32Guy you won’t have to worry about taking too long, but that’s not the match you’re changing the format for. Top 32 and up will have much closer matches, and thus much longer sets, and grand finals with a 4/7 format could take forever. Does anyone really want a potentially 21 minute long GF set? Possibly 42 minutes with a bracket reset?
Maybe GF would be manageable with keeping it 3/5 games, but you still have to deal with the extra time allotted to pools and brackets.
Sleazoid’s Salty Runback solution is a funny but possibly legit solution to the problem, though.