Proposal Bans in Tie Breakers

[Malekith]

This won't be a long post like the other proposals cause this is to easy to understand: Put the Ban system in the tie breakers.

In (almost) all competitive games they have a ban system to equilibrate the game where you can ban maps/weapons/civilizations/whatever the game use.

So my proposal is to BAN tiers before deciding the tier you want to play in the Tie-Breaker, in a snake format, so for example, if Ruiners (seed 1) and Scooters (seed 4) have to Tie-Break, this would work like this:

First of all, Ruiners (the better seed) pick if they want to start and pick 1 and 4, or if they want scooters to pick first and they would go to pick 2 and 3.

Ruiners start because they wanted to start.

Ruiners: Ban GSC
Scooters: Ban DPP
Scooters: Pick RBY
Ruiners: Pick SV

Tie Breaker for this series:

SV OU
SV OU
RBY OU

I think in this format, teams still decide a super strong tier that beneficts them to compete for the tie breaker, but balance a little bit if a generation for them is strongly weak.

 

[blank]

I don’t see a reason to change our tiebreaker system given it has been working excellently for years.

I don’t hate this idea, but I do think it rewards the weaker of the two teams in the tiebreak because it inherently benefits a team with a glaring weak point more than a team without any. I believe if your team has a super dire slot + nobody to flex into it for tiebreak, you should be punished for that, not rewarded with a get out of jail free card.

 

[a fairy]

me as myself tired and in pain so apologies if the brainthought not good

seems like this gets you tiebreaks where you see less of players in their peak tier. like you just veto a format where the opposing team has their x-0 or x-1 player and then you never get to see void in dpp or troller in rby or whatever in a tb which seems unfortunate

 

[eeriespell]

generally agree that while it's a cool idea this probably has the opposite of the intended effect. while it may make it "more competitive" to prevent your opponent from targeting your 2-7 BW slot or whatever, picking the best slot available has always been the science of tiebreaks and i pretty much mirror the above sentiment that this rewards worse drafts. i also feel like this isn't really a 1 to 1 comparison compared to say, striking stages in smash or banning characters in league/ow/whatever other hero shooter or moba you want to invoke. i think it's also worth mentioning that in most games with a pick/ban system, the objective/setup/map/whatever of the game is already decided before bans, and is not the item being decided on. the only thing that i think would bring it closer to that is being able to ban players, and i don't believe anyone should have to explain why that's a non-starter.

 

[Nails]

i don't think a single ban does enough. i'd prefer a system where each team gets 3 bans so that both teams essentially come to an agreement about which tiers they want to play. with that said, i don't think the current tiebreaker system is flawed, i rather enjoy it, so i don't see a need for change.

 

[Nails]

thought just popped into my head someone tell me if i'm crazy but why do we have a full week for playing a tiebreaker but only have bo3? tiebreakers were originally half a week to keep the tournament moving, but since we decided that was stupid and gave the 3 people the entire week to prep, why don't we have more of the team play in tiebreakers? if two teams are evenly matched enough to go to 6-6 once you can't have the entire team play over again, but a best of 7 or best of 9 is super viable. tiebreaker games are incredibly hype, no one's mad about having to prep an extra playoff game, it gives a bigger sample size so getting lucked in a single tiebreak game is less pivotal... someone tell me why this isn't the move.