Bo7 and make it 3-4 days a week.
1 round of winner's league, I really prefer pre-planned sets though.
As for sc2 I see no reason why they can't coexist, though it seems like the majority of people aren't really interested. brodcasting WCG and such seems like a fair compromise for now.

Vuk_91

Serbia1690 Posts

October 13 2011 20:10 GMT

#43

BO7,4 days a week.
2 rounds of winners league.
We don`t need it.

Peeano

Netherlands5360 Posts

October 13 2011 20:36 GMT

#44

IMO with fewer days and bo7 we get more interesting matches, since the progamers have more time to prepare, and it will be not as hard to keep up.

beachbeachy

United States509 Posts

October 13 2011 20:55 GMT

#45

On October 14 2011 05:36 s.Q.uelched wrote:
IMO with fewer days and bo7 we get more interesting matches, since the progamers have more time to prepare, and it will be not as hard to keep up.

Exactly. When matches are played almost everyday it gets mundane and boring, so then I eventually only watch select matches. I think this change is crucial to the success of BW.

amazingxkcd

GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts

October 13 2011 20:57 GMT

#46

Other (keep bo7 but do 4 days a week, dunno about that new broadcasting station)
Only 1 round of Winners League (Give Ace a chance to Win SPL, goddammit...)
We don't need no frackin' SC2!

prototype.

Canada4215 Posts

October 13 2011 21:13 GMT

#47

That poll regarding SC2 warms my heart

Mortality

United States4790 Posts

October 13 2011 21:15 GMT

#48

Part of the problem with SPL is that there are too many games. Fans demand more, more, MORE games all the time, but then they watch a much lower percentage of them, meaning tv ratings go down and seats are left empty. This is especially a problem for less popular teams and probably a HUGE factor in why they lost sponsorship. If there was full attendance at every game with lots of fans coming up all the time those sponsorship deals might not have been lost.

Right now, BW is over-exposed. It's not that I want to see less BW on tv, but that fans care less and less about any particular match because there are just so many matches and there's not enough overall interest to sustain the current pace.

SPL should cut down to 3-4 games per week, 1 round of SWL. Matches should stay Bo7 though. With the reduction in teams fewer players will get exposed, meaning it's the same small set of players that would get seen. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a rule should be in place that a player can only appear in so many regular (non-ace) games per round. This would force teams to develop new stars, which might help spark some renewed interest in this great game.

FabledIntegral

United States9232 Posts

October 13 2011 21:30 GMT

#49

Why are people against KESPA in SC2 :S. As long as it doesn't take from BW. Or is the assumption that it will?

talismania

United States2364 Posts

October 13 2011 21:57 GMT

#50

Why wouldn't KeSPA from BW switch to SC2 if/when players switch? It's the same sponsors, the same coaches.

garlicface

Canada4196 Posts

October 13 2011 22:02 GMT

#51

1) Bo7 for 3-4 days.

fabiano

Brazil4644 Posts

October 13 2011 22:24 GMT

#52

On October 14 2011 06:30 FabledIntegral wrote:
Why are people against KESPA in SC2 :S. As long as it doesn't take from BW. Or is the assumption that it will?

It will certainly be something more for KeSPA to expend on, and as we can see koreans aren't amazed at SC2 at all.

Talin

Montenegro10532 Posts

October 13 2011 22:28 GMT

#53

bo7/5 out of those options, but can cut a day or two if progamers/teams really need it. Anything except Bo5 is fine pretty much, we saw some pretty decent rookies last season, no need to cut into theirs + any other up and coming player's playing time.

Winners League out imo, I don't actually hate watching it, but given a choice I'd have it gone in favor of a uniform match structure.

Gradually move into SC2 for the third option. Sticking with BW is a priority, but it obviously won't last forever.

Al Bundy

7257 Posts

October 13 2011 22:47 GMT

#54

Sure we don't need it, but that doesn't mean that Sc2 does not have a place among the KeSPA sanctioned events.

gustavohmp

Brazil139 Posts

October 13 2011 23:02 GMT

#55

How the inclusion of SC2 on Kespa could hurt BW?
The way I see it, there is no possible harm in adding SC2. They dont compete in terms of audience.

VGhost

United States3617 Posts

October 13 2011 23:13 GMT

#56

Format: Other. I like Bo7, but would prefer to see 2-4 days (depending on schedule etc.).

Winners Leage: Other. Dream League format ftw, either all rounds or replacing at least one round of WL.

SC2: If KeSPA wants to get involved, they should start now. Certainly no later than HotS release. But one caveat, they should clearly run in tandem with BW leagues, not try to force a switch.

I think I'd like to see something along the lines of:

SPL 4 days a week. I'd love to see a full season of dream league format, but that's unlikely.
OSL continuing to run: 1 day (sometimes 2).
A "trial run" open SC2 individual league running 1 day a week.

If prime-time somehow would be forced to choose, priority should be OSL -> SPL -> SC2.

1 day off for my sanity and progamer's health.

eviltomahawk

United States11135 Posts

October 13 2011 23:18 GMT

#57

Hmmm, there should be an option for Bo7 3~4 days a week, IMO.
Bo5 or Bo7. 3~4 days or 5 days. That's 4 options, 5 including "other."

Although I love the Winner's League format, I can see why people would prefer 1 round rather than 2, and I agree with that.

Although KeSPA doesn't need to adopt SC2 right now, I think it's inevitable that it will eventually be adopted sometime in the future, though BW will obviously still be given higher priority. It's not needed right now, though I would love to see some of the KeSPA mapmakers try their hands at SC2 maps.

gngfn

United States1726 Posts

October 13 2011 23:25 GMT

#58

I was thinking Bo5s five days a week with some sort of stipulation about player reuse. For example, under last season's schedule there were two consecutive rounds of regular PL, then Winners League, then two more consecutive rounds of regular PL. Maybe the rule could be that the same players cannot appear twice against the same team in consecutive rounds, so if KT fielded Flash, Stats, Action, and Barracks against SKT in R1, they would have to pick four different players to face them in R2. This rule would not apply to ace matches. (If this is too strict, you can always tweak it so only 2-3 of the players must change, which would help teams like the former Oz by allowing them to at least use Jaedong or Killer every time.)

The benefit of this system is that matches are shortened, making them more watchable for live and TV spectators alike, without sacrificing player diversity. It would also add more strategy to the process of selecting players during the match, since half the time under the current system you can guess who the 5th and 6th players will be just by looking at who hasn't played yet that night. The only drawback I can see is that if a relatively weak team uses its four strongest players in the first match, it'll look like they're fielding their B-team in the second, but I think with fewer games to play teams will strategize more and try to mix in weaker players with special builds to preserve their stronger players for the next match. We might also see more high-quality marquee matchups in ace matches; if Jaedong's team and KT are meeting but both he and Flash played in the last round's match, the only game they have to practice for is the ace.