EPICENTER St. Petersburg has served as proof of concept for multiple aspects of tournament format in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. Many fans direct their focus to whether a team is good or bad. Behind those games, there exists a game which goes on before the match begins, before the tournament even begins. Map veto and tournament format are the aspects of competitive Counter-Strike that provide the environment for the memorable double-overtime on Cobblestone in the final. Even so, these subtle yet fundamental aspects over Counter-Strike go unappreciated.

Bo3 Group Stage

Many tournament organizers state that they are unable to implement a best of three group stage format. Event organizers, like ESL, are supposedly unable to justify or afford the additional expenditure caused by additional days to the event, but at the same time, they hire poorly received DJs to their events. It is also ESL’s sister company, EPICENTER, that put on the recent awe-inspiring event that has now led some fans to begin to question formatting conventions in Counter-Strike. Although there is no information on the financial specifics surrounding the organizing of EPICENTER St. Petersburg, the assumption is that EPICENTER is able to host a tournament with a Bo3 group stage without breaking the bank. This may be assumed because EPICENTER has not just been a one off event and has had viewing success only rivaled by Counter-Strike’s most elite tournaments.

The other half of the complaint against Bo3 group stages in Counter-Strike comes from fans. Their focus is on there being too many games to watch. The amount of Dasha memes from the first few days of EPICENTER alone is enough to show that a great number of fans were there to see many of the games unfold last week. However, there are still some people who complain about being occupied by work or school and are unable to watch all of the games. To that, I say there is always the option of watching VODs, which can sometimes provide an even greater experience than watching live. Work and school are one thing, but if a fan is unwilling to watch games after the fact or is unwilling to reschedule other leisure activities so that they can watch the game, then maybe, it is time for them to reevaluate their priorities--that Counter-Strike is not as captivating for them as it is for others. It’s fine to not want to watch esports for 12 hours a day. Even people with jobs in esports get burnt out. That does not mean that competitive integrity and the enjoyment of others should be compromised as well.

Competitive integrity is the most important factor in implementing Bo3 group stages in Counter-Strike. Best of three’s have been shown to really test teams and determine who is the winner. One of the amazing things about Counter-Strike is the economy and how it provides the means for teams to bounce back. Every few rounds, a team has the opportunity to go against their opponents with a full buy. In effect, a team that gets off to a good start early in the game cannot cruise through the rest of the game, dominating their opponent. The same principle should be applied to maps since teams vary greatly map to map.

A frequent line repeated in opposition to Bo3 group stages is that it removes the excitement from having one game determine whether a team gets to keep their tournament life or not. This kind of thinking not only runs counter to the most fundamental principles of competition, but it also undervalues authentic upsets played in a Bo3 where the underdog has truly proven that they are the better team.

This is one of the incredible things about Virtus.pro’s run. They didn’t get lucky and somehow made it to the playoffs. They ran the gauntlet and proved that they were more deserving of making it to the playoffs than FaZe--the best team in the world right now. Fans now have a revived admiration for Virtus.pro, which is strengthened both by the number of games that they played and the impressive format the games were played in.

Conversely to Virtus.pro, FaZe Clan were on their way to becoming the undisputed kings of this era. Two trophies and 20 map wins in a row baffled fans as there have been only two comparable feats in the past: NiP’s 87-0 and Fnatic’s six tournament win streak. As far as anyone could tell, FaZe were truly a top team, but with a group stage exit involving a Bo3 format, doubt has been casted on how genuine our previous assessments were.

Context is king. A player having an incredible performance in spite of illness becomes an even more incredible player. Likewise, a player given all of the resources to achieve success but fails to do so is an even greater failure. Including the context of NiP’s win streak, for example, would diminish their achievements in the eyes of many. The Ninjas in Pyjamas had a headstart on other pros in that they were among the first to commit to CS:GO. The 87-0 occurred at the beginning of the game when competition was weak due to many players having just begun their transition. Like NiP, the context of FaZe’s win streak may be that they weren’t adequately tested due to inadequate tournament format. Teams may not have had enough of a chance to battle back against FaZe when competition was confined to a best of one and might be more successful in Bo3 format. With the context of FaZe having bombed out in the group stage of a tournament with a perceived superior format, one might begin to question the integrity and legitimacy of FaZe’s win streak.

Bo5 Final

Similar to the complaints associated with best of three group stages, a best of five final has been opposed on the basis of how long it takes to watch. While I agree Bo5 finals should not be at every tournament, they should be at the best of tournaments. Watching SK play Heroic in a Bo5 final will not be that enjoyable, but when the finalists are playing to the best of their ability and are at the top of the world, then it can make for one of the best finals of the year, as many were quick to point out after the conclusion of EPICENTER St. Petersburg.

The best of five between Virtus.pro and SK was much closer than people expected or what their group stage best of three would have indicated. Using the first three maps from the final to represent what a Bo3 final would look like, which were also the same maps played in the group stage matchup between the two, SK would have won the event. Virtus.pro was able to win a map and lost closely to SK in overtime, but a series ending on Train doesn’t adequately show how close these teams were. A best of three series would have neglected to show us one of the greatest moments of the year, the double overtime on Cobblestone. The EPICENTER final would not rival that of the ELEAGUE Major final if it weren’t for the best of five format. When looking at it in that perspective, there certainly is a good reason for tournament organizers putting on the biggest events of the year to use a Bo5 final.

Conclusion

EPICENTER has not only proven the that it is possible to host an event like EPICENTER St. Petersburg without having a budget that is too big to entertain, but they have also shown that their formatting choices go a long way when it comes to providing an unforgettable spectacle. The one misgiving about this event is the third place decider. Third place deciders are not very thrilling, but if you have the teams there, then you might as well get your money’s worth. I also think most fans would agree with me on a 3rd place decider being a better use of resources than a Krewella concert.

If it is your job to put on events that will keep people watching, then EPICENTER has shown you that you can do just that with a Bo3 group stage and a Bo5 final. Valuing competitive integrity begins with the tournament organizer, and it goes a long way in helping tournament organizers get their bottom line as shown by the success of EPICENTER’s latest masterpiece of a tournament.

Image credit: EPICENTER

Follow the author for more on Twitter at @Bleda412.