Is TGC6 the final nail in 3 stock's coffin? I'm skeptical -- here's some math

I simulated a bracket to do some math on how many setups can be used at once at each point in the bracket, following the rule of "1 round of winners for every 2 rounds of losers".



The term "wave" here refers to the use of 30 setups at once (i.e. if you have 60 sets to play you would need to do 2 "waves" on those 30 setups)



The following is just my math since I was trying to make sure my bracket math wasn't off, just ignore it and scroll to the end if you're not interested in basic bracket math:



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 wave



L16: LFs

= 1 wave



W9: GFs

= 1 or 2 waves



this means time equivalent to running the tournament would be 38 or 39 sets.

Assuming that every set in the tournament goes to game 3, and every game goes to time:

3 stock (24 minute max sets): 15 hours 12 minutes to 15 hours 36 minutes

2 stock (18 minute max sets): 11 hours 24 minutes to 11 hours 42 minutes



About a 4 hour timesave, assuming every set goes to time and game 3...



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 34 or 35.



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 32 or 33.



Once again, assuming EVERY set in the tournament goes to game 3 and every game goes to time:

For 3 stock this would translate to 12 hours 48 minutes to 13 hours 12 minutes.

For 2 stock this would translate to 9 hours 36 minutes to 9 hours 54 minutes.



As the number of setups increases, the time save switching from 3 stock to 2 stock becomes less significant.



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 almost 3 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.

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 decide the metagame.

Furthermore, running a tournament of 400 people in one day is no small feat and few TOs could really pull it off no matter how competent they are.

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. There were a lot of factors at play here other than the stock count.

While it's undeniable that 2 stock is faster than 3 stock (duh), there are plenty of factors that can contribute to an event running late that are worth considering.

Reply · Report Post