In the last Season of APEX, Season 2, I identified an inherent flaw of the map selection process that could give an unfair advantage to some teams over others, although the process was probably designed so as to provide a fair battleground for the two teams participating in a match. After addressing it, understanding some inconsistencies and upsets witnessed in the tournament, became much easier and it also became much easier to understand how the games left to be played could unfold.

The solution for this flaw that OGN came up with for Season 3 is bad, in my opinion, because although it fixes the issue at hand, it also creates a significantly harder environment for teams to play in and also gameplay is affected a lot more by factors outside of the game.

In this article I am gonna present my own fixes to the format, all of them based around one notion: How to create high-level competition through a competitively integral and fair format.

Increasing the Map Pool is a bad solution

The first thing I am gonna address is OGN’s solution to the problem, which was to increase the map pool and add all maps as options when a team had to choose.

Previously, the map pool was generated randomly (via an algorithm, in all probability) before each match and teams knew beforehand on which maps they were going to play. It was also limited from 14 maps to 11 maps; 1 map for each of the three attack/defence gamemodes (Hybrid, Payload, Assault) was missing from the map pool. Only the Control gamemode had all its maps available and it was entirely randomized. Teams didn’t know beforehand (as far as I know) on which Control map they were going to play. This is still the same in APEX Season 3.

This format we had seen in APEX Seasons 1&2 was in direct contrast to the formats seen in the West where teams choose on which maps they are going to play and on which gamemodes, at the same time. In APEX it was structured around the arrangement of the gamemodes and the fact that teams had to play on the majority of them to secure the win without the option to avoid one of them at all.

Two big flaws of the Western map selection process, known as Pick/Ban Map Draft, are:

1) The entirety of the map pool is available for gameplay, increasing tremendously the practice time of teams, while at the same time it’s lowering their strategical depth on maps and compositions.

2) The possibility that teams could leave a map in the map pool that none of them had practiced properly is posing a threat to the level of gameplay that LAN tournaments try to secure.

If a LAN tournament is the pinnacle of the competition and the goal is to create the most competitive experience ever, then obviously these issues should be addressed.

In APEX Season 3, by changing the map selection process and allowing teams to play on every map they please (obviously, in the order arranged by TOs) resulted in having a team on the very first game of the season, Kongdoo Panthera, facing their opponent, Lunatic-Hai, on a map they haven’t prepared and they got massacred as a result. In the previous season, no matter how much skill difference there was between the teams, because teams knew the map pool they were to play on, they always had some tactics prepared and they would never state that they lost because they hadn’t practiced on a certain map at all.

Therefore, by increasing the map pool and teams not knowing beforehand the maps they will play on results in APEX displaying the symptoms of the western formats.

The Loser’s Map Choice

The obvious question arising after identifying the problems is how to narrow down the map pool in a way that it promotes high-level play and erases RNG factors.

At this point in the game’s cycle, teams have already established preferences for certain maps of the gamemodes due to them fitting their style better and allowing their players to shine the most. Obviously, anyone who would ask pro players, would get the response that they prefer to play on maps they feel comfortable on rather than playing on maps they feel gimmicky. So, one should take into account these preferences and not reject them.

The other factor that one needs to consider about the map selection process is how teams can get to select the map they are good on. Up until this point, the loser always got to decide the next map. Therefore, in APEX S2, when the map pool was randomly generated for each map, despite both of them given time to prepare beforehand, one of the teams had more experience on a certain map than the other and, in some cases, the team that was given the choice had to choose between maps that didn’t favor them and maybe favored their opponents.

The tricky part in the solution of the problem is the rule that states that:

Loser gets to pick the next map.

Many reverse sweeps in APEX’s short history in Overwatch -but also in the West- rely on this aspect of the tournament: if a team loses two maps in a row, they get to pick two maps in a row, and this is where it starts to feel unfair. Losing a map can’t be considered a good thing, under any circumstances. However, getting to choose twice in a row which map will be next and especially within the APEX format, that has pre-arranged the gamemodes, can result in upsets and unfairness.

First of all, let me start by saying that APEX TOs were wise to put the Control gamemode up front. It’s the only gamemode where teams could never tie on (even before the cap percentage changes concerning the Assault/Hybrid maps were introduced). By the end of the map, there will be a definite loser so as to select the next map out of the choices given and there won’t be any need for a tiebreaker map.

Still, if the team that has lost the Control map also loses the Hybrid map, they get to choose again and they pick the Assault map of their choice. This is the problematic part of the equation. Assault is played only once in the series, same as Escort, and since it is the last of the first three gamemodes, where the match can end with a 3-0 score because all matches are Bo5 (except for Grand Finals), it holds much more significance than the Escort one. Moreover, because of the special characteristics of the gamemode, it’s really hard to predict how well teams will play on it. The maps of this gamemode allow vastly different tactics and approaches than for example the Escort maps. Sometimes teams are good on one of the Assault category but they struggle on the rest.

All the above boil down to the fact that letting the loser always pick the next map is in some cases favoring him, especially when the losing team has practiced more maps further down the line or if they had a bad start. Since Overwatch has 4 gamemodes, it’s not like other esports where teams fight it out on one gamemode and eventually bounce back proving their dominance. The result of a Bo5 in APEX shows that one team managed to win on more gamemodes. Reverse sweeps, in the formats used so far, also don’t tell us much about a team’s expertise in certain gamemodes. They tell us mostly that one team prepared better for the entirety of the map pool, while the other had a good showing in the first two gamemodes, which inevitably are going to be played.

The Optimal APEX Format

The optimal format makes sure that none of the above things can happen. Teams should be given the same amount of chances in a fair manner and know beforehand the map pool so as to prepare better and make sure they play at the best of their ability.

My solution would be:

1) The Map Pool will consist of 7 maps.

2) Control map is randomized but known beforehand for the teams, so they will practice mostly that for their next match.

3) Teams can pick one of the maps that they will play on for the Hybrid/Assault/Escort gamemodes.



3) The loser of the Control map picks the 1st Hybrid & Escort maps. Winner of the Control map picks the Assault & 2nd Hybrid maps.

4) No Tiebreakers needed, because the order is fixed.

By using this tournament format, both teams can always choose a map that they are comfortable on, same as they do in the current APEX S3, but at the same time they are able to prepare for their opponents’ pick and make sure that they have some counter strategies to show to the audience. It will never be a massacre and the level of play will be the highest possible.

Teams aren’t necessarily required to pick the same maps over and over again, so map diversity won’t be a thing even with 7 out of the 14 maps available in the map pool. Surely, though, as the tournament progresses, we will see less and less variety, since this is the only way to really perfect one’s play.

Giving the loser two chances in a row isn’t my thing, but in Overwatch, with 4 gamemodes available it is also a matter of integrity. I have no idea who chose the specific arrangement of the gamemodes and on what premises, but I see a problem with a team being able to pick both 1st Hybrid & Assault maps in a Bo5 game. In some cases it is all about momentum and you are giving one side twice in a row the ability to break it. Surely, results will be much different, because we’ve seen enough reverse sweeps in the APEX Seasons so far that everyone remembers fondly and they probably want to see more. However, the system I propose gets rid of the problematic Bo1 Tiebreaker solution and at the same time it makes sure that stomps are stomps and superior teams are superior.

Closing thoughts

No matter what, I feel like in serious competitions the only factor that should decide if a team is better than the other should be in-game skill.

Inside info on a team’s tactics or scrim leaks about strategies will always be a problem, but they are proven to be far more valuable if there is no way for teams to prepare beforehand for their opponents tactics since they don’t even know the maps they will face them on. Neither should a tournament format favor one team by allowing some kind of RNG if it can be avoided. Surely, patches will upset the expected results as long as there is no Tournament Realm and also, other issues, like visas or even fines may sometimes affect players. However, one should try to keep all these interferences to the absolute minimum.

Having a stable and crystal tournament format also helps viewers and analysts to visualize how games will play out and engage in discussions and opinion exchanges far easier than having to wait to find out on the first day of the tournament what kind of changes have been introduced.

– Karahol