I made a thread awhile back suggesting that tournaments should be single match, double elimination, best of 5 rounds. I saw some japanese vids having this format, but the reason to do this was not to copy the japanese. I thought it would make tournaments go faster while still having the best player win while eliminating counter picking. You have only one chance to beat a person.
If not you lose, but it’s still double elimination so you’re not completely out.
Some people agreed, most people disliked it and preferred the standard 2/3 rounds.
After reading some people’s comments on the gamestop tournaments, it seems that 3/5 was a good thing. I read that some people fell down 2 rounds to zero and were able to make a 3 round comeback. The better player one. Any difference of opinion now?
you say counter picking is eliminated. but at the same time, if the opponent knows who you use, he will still counterpick and you dont get a chance to do it back. 2of3 is how the game has been played for years. single elim, even at 2of3 rounds is still way too random, for the most part.
3of5 is ok for casuals. i dunno, 3of5 just gives way too much time to adjust in the heat of that match
My GameStop didn’t even play by the rules when iv came to this. we played 2/3 rounds single elimination. but when it got down to last three(bracket was off) we played best 2/3 matches instead of rounds. I went on to win it anyways but i guess i would have preferred 3/5. That gets rid of randomness and does show that the best player won. just my opinion though.
I see your point about counter picking. As far as your last comment though " 3 of 5" just gives way too much time to adjust in the heat of the match"
I would think that that is a good thing. As least you have to adjust in the match and not get a break between matches. I’m not just talking about 2/3 rounds here, but also the 2/3 match format.
Don’t wanna rephrase too much of what I already said in the last thread, but basically single match, 3/5 takes a lot faster than 2/3 rounds, 2/3 matches.
You’re playing a possible maximum of 5 rounds, with plenty of time to adjust in the heat of battle (with momentum involved), instead of playing a possible maximum of 9 rounds in a 2/3 round, 2/3 match format. Momentum dies after the first match is over.
You get one chance to prove you’re better than someone, not three.
I’m not surprised. With a game like 3rd strike, I can see why 2/3 rounds is better but for a game like alpha 3 or SF IV, 3/5 rounds is better. Yeah, with 2/3 you could be falling for the same thing in two rounds before you adapt. If you’re able to adapt, you can win the 3rd one, and if the opponent doesn’t change it up, he will lose the 4th and 5th round.
Haven’t played any tournaments so I dunno what could be said about that setting but I personally prefer best to 5 for casuals. By the last round, whether it be 3 or 5, you get a pretty good idea of who you’re up against. Really can see who’s the better player in a certain sense.
For most Street Fighters, I would say first 2/3 is best. But for Street Fighter 4, I think 3/5 works better since the Rage Meter resets after every match but the EX bar carries over. The game gets more exciting once you have some meter anyways so I the later rounds turn out best.
Its kinda like base building in Starcraft; once you got your economy rolling (ex meter being used and earned) the real battle begins.