ATK | pidge @ halloweiner · @pidgezero_one
7th Feb 2016 from TwitLonger
Thanks @PG_ESAM for correcting my info. Here are my recalculations.
Thanks to ESAM for correcting my info; it was 3 stocks 7 minutes, not 8. That changes things.
==ignore the following basic bracket math and skip to the end if you choose==
400 man bracket: 112 byes in round 1
(400 - 112) / 2 = 144 sets in round 1
ceil(144 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups
W1: 256 people = 128 sets
L1: 144 people + 112 byes = 16 sets
ceil (144 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups
L2: 128 winners of L1 + 128 losers of W1 = 256 people = 128 sets
ceil (128 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups
W2: 128 people = 64 sets
L3: 128 winners of L2 = 64 sets
ceil (128 / 30) = 5 waves on 30 setups
L4: 64 winners of L3 + 64 losers of W2
ceil (64 / 30) = 3 waves on 30 setups
W3: 64 people = 32 sets
L5: 64 winners of L4 = 32 sets
ceil (64 / 30) = 3 waves on 30 setups
(above two can happen close enough together that it would be time equivalent to 5 waves at most)
L6: 32 winners of L4 + 32 losers of W3 = 32 sets
ceil (32 / 30) 2 waves on 30 setups
W4: 32 people = 16 sets
L7: 32 winners of L6 = 16 sets
ceil (32 / 30) 2 waves on 30 setups
(above two can happen close enough together that it would be time equivalent to 3 waves at most)
L8: 16 winners of L7 = 16 losers of W4 (16 sets)
= 1 wave
W5: 16 people in 8 sets
L9: 16 winners of L8 = 8 sets
= 1 wave
L10: 8 winners of L9 + 8 losers of W5 (8 sets)
= 1 wave
W6: 8 people in 4 sets
L11: 8 winners of L10
= 1 wave
L12: 4 winners of L11 + 4 losers of W6 (8 sets)
= 1 wave
W7: 4 people in 2 sets
L13: 4 winners of L12
= 1 wave
L14: 2 winners of L13 + 2 losers of W7 = 2 sets
= 1 wave
W8: WFs
L15: LSFs
= 1.66 wave (bo5)
L16: LFs
= 1.66 waves (bo5)
W9: GFs
= 1.66 or 3.33 waves (bo5)
this means maximum time equivalent to running the tournament would be 40 or 41 + 2/3 18 or 21 minute sets
3 stock (21 minute max sets): 14 hours to 14 hours 35 minutes
2 stock (18 minute max sets): 12 hours to 12 hours 30 minutes
About a 2 hour timesave, assuming every set is is roughly the same length on average under their respective rulesets.
However, even with the addition of as little as 2 setups, having minimum 32...
L2 and W2 + L3 drop from 10 waves to 8.
L4 and W3 + L5 drop from a combined 5 waves to 4.
L6 and W4 + L7 drop from a combined 3 waves to 2.
This would put the total wave count at 36 or 37 + 2/3.
If they were able to use their original setup count of 40, the starting round as well as W1 + L1 would be taken down to 4 waves each instead of 5 waves each.
This would put the total wave count at 34 or 35 + 2/3.
Once again, assuming EVERY set in the tournament goes to final game and every game goes to time:
For 3 stock this would translate to 11 hours 54 minutes to 12 hours 50 minutes, assuming the same average set length as above.
3 stocks on 40 setups would be as quick, or slightly faster, than 2 stocks on 30 setups.
(For the record: 2 stocks on 40 setups would translate to 10 hours 12 minutes to 10 hours 42 minutes.)
As entrant numbers increase, the time save switching from 3 stock to 2 stock becomes more significant.
However, as the number of setups increases, the time save switching from 3 stock to 2 stock becomes less significant.
I would ideally recalculate all of this if I had numbers on how many stocks on average are played in a set, how long each stocks last on average, and how these numbers differ (if at all) between 3 and 4 stock rulesets (since timer length inevitably will change playstyle even if subtly).
But since I don't have those numbers I'm going with the worst case scenario.
This particular tournament's unforeseen electrical failure decreased the setup count by 25%. That's huge. Even as little as two setups could have saved at least 2 hours of time without changing the ruleset.
Should this particular tournament have switched to 2 stock to save time in the aftermath of an unexpected disaster? Probably. Switching to 2 stock would have likely ended up with them finishing on their original schedule.
Is this tournament the final nail in the coffin for 3 stock? I would argue that it shouldn't be. Venue disasters are rare enough that they shouldn't overcentralize the metagame.
Furthermore, running a tournament of 400 people in one day is a recipe for disaster even with the most competent TOs.
An event of this size running on 1 day would have to choose between an entrance cap or a ruleset change, especially in the event of an external disaster.
It's not the be all and end all argument against 3 stock.