The ft2 vs. ft3 Argument; Eternally Retold 

They can't do trial by combat because they won't be able to agree how many rounds to fight for

Every time I click on a Sajam video, half the video is just sajam being like “stop being so mad about it, everyone is so angry”. And I’m always like, why don’t I see all of this alleged complaining? Then I remember that I’m not on Twitter, and a wave of euphoria passes through me.

Players who thrive on running wild: “FT2!” Players who thrive on staying solid: “FT3!” TOs: “Please, for the love of all that is good in this world, whatever gets us out of the venue before 1 AM.”

Sajam taking the twitter feud crude and refining it into high quality level-headed content oil. Thank you sir for letting me stay off twitter while still getting that good discourse

Actually there is a *very* simple and *very* elegant solution TO rolls a D20 before every match: 1 - Fist fight 2 - 5 - First to 1 6 - 10 - First to 2 11 - 15 - first to 3 16 - 19 - first to 5 20 - Fist fight And just like that, problem solved, pack your bags everybody!

Back in my day, a 2/3 game was eating a double snap and watching your assist character get launched to death and then praying they fuck up the incoming mixup

Personally, I think tournaments should be running first to >200, p-value of

Big chess tournaments do the whole round robin, play each matchup with both the white and the black pieces. They also take 15 days So, there's that...

Sajam, one issue with the trial by combat Do they do it first to two or three? You suggested to the death, but idk how I feel about first to one

The Leffen Problem: The best way to make people automatically hostile to your ideas is to be automatically hostile yourself

I've always been partial to ft Alt+F4 myself

Melee uses a hybrid system for most tournaments: ft2 up until top 64, then ft3 from top 64 to the end of the tournament. I feel like this helps address some of the logistical concerns.

I used to get roped into running tournaments (not just fighting game tournaments) a lot because I knew how to and I rarely say no to something. If running your game means that by the time we leave the venue, it's pitch black dark in the parking lot with a side order of potentially getting mugged and I can't even go by Taco Bell to pick up some crap fast food because they've already closed, I will flat out say "I'm never running that game again." And that pretty much ends it.

What I have found is that you strategize completely differently if it's 2/3, 3/5, first to 10, or first to 50. The less games there are, the more you can try to spam knowledge checks. In super long matches, on the other hand, you find yourself playing really weird mind games and doing stuff which is usually super suboptimal, just to do something unexpected and find ban opening.

As a soon to be Manon main, I think we should run ft3 in-game

For anyone who is a big proponent of 3/5, before you ever say it's always better, volunteer to run brackets/etc at a major/monthly in your area. Unless you've actually been in the trenches first-hand and know what kind of effect prolonging the tournament has on everyone running the tournament, you don't have a complete understanding of how much shit can hit the fan when tournaments run too long. You know what's better than FT3? Actually having a tournament at all because the people making the tournament happen aren't miserable working for 12+ hours and are willing to do it again next year.

You can sort of math all of this out given enough data. The primary draw of 3/5 (IMO) is that it amplifies differences in player skill. A player with a 40% chance of winning will have an easier time winning twice than three times; a player with a 60% chance of winning will be more likely to win a 3/5 than a 2/3. (This also assumes that neither player is affected by having to concentrate on a longer set, adjusts their strategies over time, or other such factors, and is just consistently at that skill level.) You can easily identify 3/5 sets where that difference manifested: it's any set where rounds 4 and 5 were played and were won by the same person (in all other sets, the player who won would still have won if it was only the first three games). The primary draw of 2/3 (IMO) is that it is much more practical to run. Tournaments require time and effort that few people are willing to put in week after week and year after year. Additionally, if grand finals of your all-3/5-sets tournament happens at 2AM, you probably aren't getting great quality gameplay at what should be the climax of the event. You can get a pretty rough estimate of the cost of switching any number of sets from 2/3 to 3/5: assuming all the usual mishaps like "player was late to their set and held up bracket" are ignored, you can take the typical length of a close 2/3 set between slow characters (because it's the slowest set of a given tournament round we care about; that's the one making the tournament take longer), increase that time by 66.7%, and that's how much extra time you spend by running that tournament round as a 3/5 rather than a 2/3. (Or you can take the 3/5 length and reduce it by 40%. Should work out the same.) I would just measure the tournament round length directly, but not all tournaments are equally well-organized, so that probably would have a bad signal to noise ratio. But maybe I'm wrong! So now we get to weigh the costs more clearly: first of all, when played 3/5, how frequently does your game have sets where rounds 4 and 5 were played and were won by the same player? Second of all, how long does a set of your game take, worst case? And finally: is it worth catering to players who lose 2/3s but win 3/5s at the cost of making the tournament run longer? I think the best solution is what TOs have been doing for a very long time: most sets are played 2/3, with some amount of Top X sets played 3/5. This minimizes the 3/5 time drawback while allowing for 3/5's strengths to show in the sets that actually matter with money, reputation, etc. on the line. But with this general framework in mind, we can sort of play with that X value to predict what it should look like.

As a spectator, I’d rather 2 out of 3 until top 8 so I can see a larger variety of players and characters. Some games, like MK11, that got pushed to 3/5 for most of the tournament made it unbearable to watch.

The only numbers i know are 0-2

One thing with FT3 is that even if the game is on average fast, you also have to consider the slowest potential match. Some particular match can go to game 5, last round, in a slow matchup with cautious players, etc etc. That one match can slow down the rest of bracket that comes after.

I like FT2 in pool and up to top 8 settings before moving to FT3. Having been to locals and being a TO myself, it helps get matches through and you get more of a chance to stream cooler matches with different characters at times. The reward for getting through the chaos of FT2 is getting to Top 8 and testing yourself in some grueling sets against other top players, which you can have more of with faster pools. That way you can get a good bracket through and have everyone home that day or whenever the tournament finishes at a reasonable time.

I think we should refer to Majin Obamas video “Your Game isn’t Bad Enough for 3/5”.

I think 2/3 for at least up until top 8 makes sense for most games, especially when they first come out. It lets the pace of the game be established and, as Sajam said, it's much easier to change a game from a 2/3 standard to a 3/5 standard than the other way around.

I always liked the game count going up at the end. Like hey you made top 8, NOW it's 3/5 because we want to see adaptation and crazy smart stuff.

Have always done first to 2. Never knew it was a subject of debate.

"Everyone's a grumpy crybaby bitch" finally someone calls out the internet

5:55 this kinda happened in smash 4, we went from 2 to 3 stocks, realized how slowed down the game got, and moved back to 2 LOL.

How about we base the tournament format on the basis of the moon's phase that given week?

Round robin , screw it , lets make the tournaments run for 1 month

I think players should do a ft5 of the game followed by a ft3 of chess followed by a ft55 of rock paper scissors

Anything less than ft10 is a dice roll magically weighted towards the worse player.

And that ladies and gentlemen was called the 3/5ths compromise

I feel this all too well as a chipp player with 2/3 favoring more explosive offense. Especially versus longer sets or a bracket reset, for example. In all honesty, as long the organizers are happy, we have to keep in mind they are hosting and providing the tournament in the first place. Without them, we wouldn't have a spot to play in the first place.

I love how Sajam is just like: Guys… stop it, there’s no need to be mad and not nice, it’s all gonna be fine, just chill out, take a break from tweeter

Ft2 this ft3 that…I think we should do what we did in the good ol days and settle everything with a game of hoop and stick

ft3 vs ft2 gang need to settle it in a ft10 tbh

2/3 in pools, 3/5 in semi finals

This is easily settled. 2/3 is bigger than 3/5.

I think it also depends heavily on the game. Some games (like anime fighters) have long, grindy combos that chip away at the health bar. Other games can be over in like, two hits. The shorter the rounds, the lower the cost of bumping up to ft3 instead of ft2.

Make it first to 3 unless I lose than make it first to 5.

That Manon bit at the end fucking sent me

Idk why people think "having a long set makes it more likely for the better player to win" is a compelling argument. Part of the fun of competition is the upset, the randomness, thefrint runner goes home early and now you don't know what's gonna happen in top eight

This gets a lot trickier with games where mechanics (especially snowball mechanics) carry over between rounds. Shun Di from Virtua Fighter, for example, plays a lot differently depending how many rounds you can burn building up your drink meter before your moveset opens up enough to sweep the rest of the game. And this is especially important in VF because Shun Di is the only character with a meter, so the number of rounds affects characters (well, one character) unfairly.

Ol' man Sajam bringing out his Bardock war stories.

Why ft1 single elim? Do first to 1 round.

Trail by combat is a ft1 which will only complicate the problem.

I think the 3/5 is needed when the matches are super fast and quick that doesn't let people adapt or play more neutral, for instance in KOF I think usually 2/3 has been always OK, but for Guilty Gear it is needed a 3/5.

FT3 just feels more civilised to me I can't explain it

For reference Vanguard is a card game with tons of RNG factors between triggers, soul charging, and OT especially and they run BO1 cause that's just what they do in JP. Ultimately the event is going to run what they feel will fit their schedule or format or they just won't run the game if they can't make it fit

i’m a skullgirls TO where ft3 is the norm but ft2 is just what should happen with tournaments so people can like. go to sleep and things don’t stretch out for too long. thats all i care about

FT3 clearly results in the player with more skills winning more on average in my opinion and that's why I've always thought a 1 game Super bowl was such a terrible idea and conversely an MLB's FT4 always seemed like a great idea if you want to see how 2 teams first match up followed by how they adjust over several games. Plus nothing is hyper than a World Series Game 7 if you enjoy the sport.

I prefer FT3 because I like using a round or game to understand how my opponent plays and how to play around their style.

First to 2 would be the best solution for time or we can meet in the middle. For example, why not have first to 2 from pools all the way to top 64-32, after that, it becomes a first to 3 set. Thoughts?

Parry is so universally strong in SF6 that I don't think people are gonna have much issue slowing the game down once folks have labbed safety/punishes/etc properly If anything the high potential damage is going to make things dry at a high level.

It'a funny that this topic got brought up right before out monthly. I decided I'm gonna take this opportunity to actually run a little study: I'm gonna record the Marvel and GGST matches and see how many times the one who wins two matches first is different from the one who wins three matches first. Because honestly, I'm kinda skeptical that FT3 really makes a difference when it comes to early round bracket results. I want to see the actual numbers to be convinced either way.

Ft1 round is my go to. After first round uninstall.

ft2 until top 8 then it's ft3, this should not be a discussion

To decide this once and for all, we need to have a FT10.

yes time should be the biggest factor. There is less variance in 3/5 but there is also merit to 2/5. Having both in tournaments is a good thing. Maybe make it top 8s are 3/5 but otherwise every match being 2/3 does not matter to me

I like best of 3 because it doesnt take that much time, and you can relax shortly afterwards. A 5v5 set sometimes is more fun, but Im old and my fingers start to hurt.

Let's make it 2/3 for the tournament organizers sakes.

I feel like they should follow the example of some FPS tournaments where the lower brackets/pools etc. are 2/3 (or 3/5 for really fast paced games) and then when you get to like Quarter Finals etc. then it becomes 3/5 (or 5/7 for really fast games).,

Whatever style makes me have the best odds at that cool million in SF6 please and thank you.

Fuck it. Swiss brackets day 1. Death matches, best of ten. 45 mins max. Just to see what happens.

@Sajam How many stations are set up at a tournament like EVO? With thousands of people playing between multiple fighting games, you have to think hundreds of matches are going at once

Oh so it's just another Tuesday in ye ol' FGC.

For Sajam's sake, all tournies now should be FT1, 1 round, with 30 seconds on the clock. Also if applicable, the damage should be cranked to max, and health values should be lowered to min.

If you reduce volality, you reduce variance, which means the better player wins more often. That's not in question. The only valid argument against is logistic, which is fine because it's a good argument.

I'd say fewer matches favors players who rely on overwhelming their opponent with things like knowledge checks, unorthodox playstyles, fancy tech, ect. while more matches favors players who rely on being able to read and adapt to their opponent over time. Its definitely great to find that sweet spot where both playstyles are viable and you get this tension where you don't know if one player will be able to adapt to the other in time to mount the comeback or if the other player will manage to keep them off balance long enough, or if the comebacks happening, will pull out some new trick that clutches that final round.

Organizers are gonna do FT2 regardless, they aren't gonna bother making the event longer than it has to be unless they're gonna hike up the entry fee.

I was always a first to 100 type of guy, whoever fails to stay awake loses

Mortal Kombat 11 changed ranked from best of 5 to best of 3 and it was fucking infuriating.

I think the issue with shorter sets is that, for sure it's another skillset, but it also seems less skillful. A 50/50 is much more impactful in a ft2 vs a ft3 and could change the entire match, and 50/50s aren't exactly skillful (even if it takes skill to set the 50/50 up). It's also the reason why online warriors are seen as jokes, because the strategy that makes you a better player and win tournaments isn't the strategies used in a ft1 game online because everyone just wants to cheese you quickly and get their win, which also isn't skill based necessarily. 3/5 is also hype for the reverse 3-0s after the download

Damn I did not know that a lot of thought put into ft3 vs ft2. I thought it was just a time thing

Think the main thing is adaptation. The people that are really good at adapting to the opponent is the one that will win longer set.

Smogon Singles players only felt pain throughout this video

I vote for Strive format. 3 matches, the winner of the last one takes all.

Like Kbrad said; "first to infinity"

as someone whose only game played at a serious level is ggstrive, ft3 is the way I don't know where the line is but I feel like if you can grab 1000 2 round matches at random and less than 5 will have completed any given character's theme song in their duration, the game should be ft3

I think most of us want to see similar in skill players to brawl it out and players with big skill gap to end it quick. That's why I recommend everyone to try format "3 over opponent". Here is how it works: To win the set one of the competitors have to score 3-0, 4-1 or reach 5 wins first. Downside of this system - occasionally it can lead to 9 games being played in one set if final score is 5-4, but it is worth it because similar in skill opponents are brawling it out 💪

I think it ultimately depends on how long individual matches in the game go for. I'd never want FT3 in a game with defense as strong as DBFZ, for example. That said, I can't think of any games where sets go fast enough (in a tournament setting) to warrant changing to a FT3 ruleset

FT1 play your best, no gimmicks, adapt fast or die. TOs wanna go back home and I don't wanna watch top 16 the entire day

We should decide it in a bo5

ft3 but its ft2 in game and the final round is an irl fistfight

I really want to see FGC boxing after Ludwig's event, that is trial by combat

To be fair, I miss watching FT1 single elimination. Those sets are just wilds to watch....best in the world, dominates for a season. one game, two rounds and done. Watching fists of the north star.... how, how can these kids take that game seriously? It goes SO FAST.

Woah, no need to call out Manon players at the end there.

Meanwhile, Manon main: Just one game, 4 out of 7 rounds. XD

I'd prefer FT3 in top 8 Winners and Losers, but FT2 below that. I know we get FT3 in Winners finals and Grand Finals, but I think it's more interesting as a viewer to see someone flip a 0-2 into a 3-2. Makes for some really hype moments.

2/3 till finals or 3/5 till finals. Why do you suddenly need to win more at top 8? If the argument is that 2/3 is volatile then that applies even more at pools.

i think comprimising by making top 8 ft3 is fine. If they have the time to do even more ft5 than that, go for it. But it's understandable why you wouldn't

if they did a trial by combat to decide would it be a ft2 or ft3

I like ft3 because as a viewer if the match up is hype or interesting to watch I get to see more of said match up. Alternatively if I am in a players mindset who is studying to try and get better then I have a bit more to watch. Ft2s just feel kind of abrupt to me. Especially with fast paced games like DBFZ or Skullgirls

Tekken 7 player off screen: Should be two rounds of 3 Ko's each

The next time you hear someone say a game should be FT3 tell them the game should be Best of 1, single elimination instead, SBO style.

i only have one complaint Where the hell is the rematch button in fucking BBCB in lobby ? WHY IS THERE NONE ?????? One round two health bar match duration is 20-35sec at least give us more round

IMO you want as many games as is practical, so if the game is fast enough, then of course go for 3/5, but if it isn't, then something has to give. TOs do a hard job, and we need to keep them happy, otherwise it's first to nothing as there's no tourney. If, for example, you want top 8 to go for about 2 hours, then you have to get through 10 or 11 sets, and 120/11 is about 10.9 or ten minutes and 54 seconds, which means that *including the dicking around between sets* the average set has to be less than 11 minutes long. If sets are an average of 4 games that each go 2 rounds to 1 (doing Fermi estimation here) that means 12 rounds per set, so if we give ~two minutes for changing players between sets and setting controls etc to give 9 minutes or 540 seconds of gameplay, the average round would need to go for 45 seconds. TLDR: If you want a top 8 to go for about 2 hours, then 3/5 is reasonable IF rounds go for less than 45 seconds on average and people take less than 2 minutes between sets on average, which may be true but remains to be proved.

FT3 = works for structured invitationals FT2 = required for open tournaments

Tale as old as time

We should do what the aztecs do to sports athletes except backwards the loser gets sent to xibalba