Goodspeed wrote:I think the civ picking rules contributed to these weird results. Having the winner pick first every time often leads to close series and can make even long series feel like best of 3's, where only one thing needs to go wrong for a victory to slip through your fingers even if you're the better player. This is the reason we went for alternating first picks at the time, and I believe the current rules to be misguided. But that's another discussion.
[Armag] diarouga wrote:Yep, alternative pick makes much more sense.
Why? The only thing these rules change is game 3, where the winner locks first for a second time. This prevents the 3-0 blowout from being as likely a result, marginally. In a 3-1 series, the player who lost game 1 still gets the exact same number of opportunities to counterpick. These rules from the past tourney are superior to older rules for a few reasons, including the ease-of-understanding and more sensical flow once playing with them in-game.
Because God forbid a player who is clearly better would win 3-0?
Momentum is a thing. The worse player, with these rules, objectively has more chances for a comeback.
Say you're up 2-0 and map 4 is one you haven't practiced. Suddenly it's 2-2 and they have momentum. Would've been 3-0 with fair rules.
You removed the significance of "breaking" someone's counter pick.
To illustrate, tennis. Imagine what would happen if you always had the loser of the previous game serve in the next. You'd get a bunch of really close sets, and the chances of the best player winning are lowered.
Normally, in a best of 3 anything can happen between 2 relatively even players. But in a best of 9, you can be pretty sure the better player will win. With these rules, you have somewhat negated this effect and made it less likely that the better player wins. Imho in a tournament, especially one with high stakes, that is misguided.
But close series are exciting and the better player will most likely still win. It's not a huge deal.