|
On March 07 2013 04:03 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 03:15 Psyonic_Reaver wrote:
Due to Despa's lack of PvZ. Is it possible to, with proper notice, for me to still be able to PvZ on maps my team feels they need a Protoss? I'd still like to be able to TvZ on maps my team needs a T but since we have plenty of T's I understand if I will be required to switch to full P "If players are race pickers they must announce their races within 12 hours of the lineups getting posted.": In the rules yo...
I can see that being quite unfair to the Zerg player. Let's say I expect a Terran on Jade, and field a Zerg there who has strong ZvT but weaker ZvP (such as shuruken or Birdie). The other team can field a racepicker on Jade, and then just have the racepicker choose his best race or matchup, thus entirely negating the point of a double blind submission. In previous leagues, racepickers or people looking to switch race had to make clear their 3 matchups at least a week in advance to prevent such post-submission scumbaggery.
On the BoX/BoX/Ace format: it's an interesting discussion but I feel that 3 days before Day 1 is not a good time to have it. We should just leave it as whatever it is now (Bo5 with no ace match I believe?). I'm going to submit lineups tomorrow, and I plan to have team practices the next 2 days, hopefully with lineups available.
|
On March 07 2013 04:10 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 04:03 Jealous wrote:On March 07 2013 03:15 Psyonic_Reaver wrote:
Due to Despa's lack of PvZ. Is it possible to, with proper notice, for me to still be able to PvZ on maps my team feels they need a Protoss? I'd still like to be able to TvZ on maps my team needs a T but since we have plenty of T's I understand if I will be required to switch to full P "If players are race pickers they must announce their races within 12 hours of the lineups getting posted.": In the rules yo... I can see that being quite unfair to the Zerg player. Let's say I expect a Terran on Jade, and field a Zerg there who has strong ZvT but weaker ZvP (such as shuruken or Birdie). The other team can field a racepicker on Jade, and then just have the racepicker choose his best race or matchup, thus entirely negating the point of a double blind submission. In previous leagues, racepickers or people looking to switch race had to make clear their 3 matchups at least a week in advance to prevent such post-submission scumbaggery. On the BoX/BoX/Ace format: it's an interesting discussion but I feel that 3 days before Day 1 is not a good time to have it. We should just leave it as whatever it is now (Bo5 with no ace match I believe?). I'm going to submit lineups tomorrow, and I plan to have team practices the next 2 days, hopefully with lineups available.
I am 100% in accordance with the "must announce racepick on map before seeing line-up" situation. I don't think Psyonic Reaver was aiming for anything other than that anyway xP
It is certainly a bad time to change format, but I am thinking that after this week there could be some polls on all of the things debated: Ace match or no, Bo5 or Bo7, Bo1 or Bo3 for individual matches, etc.
|
I think most teams would best be able to do Bo5 with no Ace Match. I'm strongly against having sets be Bo3, and agree with much of what Babo said. If its Bo7 with an Ace Match, thats harder for alot of teams, but not crippling so. A Bo7 with Ace is 6 players, while a Bo5 with no Ace needs 5. Maybe poll it? I feel like this should have been decided a while ago lol
|
Poll: Match format?Bo5 no ace (22) 51% Bo7 w/ ace (20) 47% Bo7 no ace (1) 2% Bo5 w/ ace (0) 0% 43 total votes Your vote: Match format? (Vote): Bo5 no ace
(Vote): Bo5 w/ ace
(Vote): Bo7 w/ ace
(Vote): Bo7 no ace
Poll: Game format?Bo1 (30) 88% Bo3 (4) 12% 34 total votes Your vote: Game format? (Vote): Bo3
(Vote): Bo1
|
I am highly against Bo7 w/ ace, because this does two things:
It favours teams with more players who won't have to worry about needing an extra player every week.
It gives a big advantage to teams who have a strong ace player, somewhat defeating the team aspect of it if they can take it to ace.
I also think bo3 in each set is a terrible idea mostly for the reasons Jealous outlined earlier.
|
On March 07 2013 06:04 DarkNetHunter wrote:
I am highly against Bo7 w/ ace, because this does two things:
It favours teams with more players who won't have to worry about needing an extra player every week.
It gives a big advantage to teams who have a strong ace player, somewhat defeating the team aspect of it if they can take it to ace.
I also think bo3 in each set is a terrible idea mostly for the reasons Jealous outlined earlier.
Bo7 w/ace is only 1 more player per week, not a big issue for any team now that there is PP and every team has at least 8 players imo...
I don't agree with your last sentiment either, for two reasons.
1. It doesn't defeat the team aspect because the team still has to get 3 wins besides the ace match. Even if the top player plays twice, that is still 2 more wins necessary for the rest of the team. Teams with strong ace players and weak supporting teams haven't done well in PL or other DRTL events (besides AK format obviously), if you look back.
2. I don't know much about [msj], but just about every other team has at least 1 or 2 strong players who would be ace and could stand against the aces from any other team.
|
On March 07 2013 06:04 DarkNetHunter wrote:
I am highly against Bo7 w/ ace, because this does two things:
It favours teams with more players who won't have to worry about needing an extra player every week.
It gives a big advantage to teams who have a strong ace player, somewhat defeating the team aspect of it if they can take it to ace.
I also think bo3 in each set is a terrible idea mostly for the reasons Jealous outlined earlier.
I agree with all this. Bo5 is fair because of small team sizes and number of people who can make it to each match, and Ace match defeats the purpose of the league; having a team to play with and giving everyone an opportunity to participate. And there don't seem to be many people in favor of Bo3 sets...
|
Whats the point of having 10+ players in each team if only 5 of them are allowed? even with people that can' t play still all you need is 6 players for BO7 and they don t have to be there even at the same time. We have had Bo7 with Ace in the last 2 seasons, really i though from the beggining that was the case. It was even in the OP. then it changed like yesterday? Really this is pretty stupid IMO. Bo5 is okay for CRTL, not DRTL, they are clearly many more people partecipating here. PLUS Postponements are allowed. Can' t see why wanna have less people playing than more. Even with 9 teams now we have a week off for each team, if you have BO5 some players are likely to play 3 games the entire Tour, thus loosing interested, thus stop training, thus less Broodwar.
|
Everything else is nice and gay but i really don' t get why it should not be BO7. And don' t tell me teams are small cause some teams have 15 players and the two teams with less (Sun Kan and Despa) have 8.
|
Team Courage wants to add a few new recruits in case the league switches to a Bo7 format. We have intermittent unavailabilities in about 1/3 to 1/2 of our roster atm so it wouldn't be sufficient to support full attendance in Bo7.
TL // iCCup // Race/MU // Rank
ilovestarcraft // cowboyspc94 //  (TvZ) // D+
ragz_gt // ragz_gt //  // Quit before 2004
TheEmulator // TheEmulator // // D+
|
Ace Matches have been a common aspect of team leagues since forever, how is including one defeating the purpose of a team league? A team still plays together, and if it was a Bo7 w/ Ace, more people are given an opportunity to participate (6 regulars instead of 5, plus 1 person gets to play twice maybe). An Ace Match is simply a tie-breaker match and nothing more, I dunno what the big deal about that is.
And that said, I think having 6 people required every week might pose a problem to some teams. Sure, some teams have 15 people. Good for you. I remember telling you people on big teams weeks ago that hardly any of you would get to play every single week due to the strong possibility of it being Bo5. But regardless, just because your team can do a Bo7 easily, doesn't mean that smaller teams can. Only having 2 spare members every week can be very tough.
|
On March 07 2013 06:29 pebble444 wrote:
Everything else is nice and gay but i really don' t get why it should not be BO7. And don' t tell me teams are small cause some teams have 15 players and the two teams with less (Sun Kan and Despa) have 8.
We have 10 ^^
@Sentenal: PP is always an option, I'm sure that that 1 extra game (in Bo7ace vs. Bo5 no ace format) can be covered by at least 1-3 of the extra players the team has at some point that week. Like you said ^^
|
On March 07 2013 06:40 Sentenal wrote:
Only having 2 spare members every week can be very tough.
To illustrate: On our team of 11 members, only FOUR players have confirmed 100% that they can play on Saturday. Of course I haven't heard back from everyone so that number could rise, but we have a number of players busy with exams and such who absolutely can't play. They can play later in the season, but such variability of absence is something we need to account for.
|
And postponements are really annoying to deal with...and even then sometimes the player just might derp off
|
On March 07 2013 06:44 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 06:40 Sentenal wrote:
Only having 2 spare members every week can be very tough. To illustrate: On our team of 11 members, only FOUR players have confirmed 100% that they can play on Saturday. Of course I haven't heard back from everyone so that number could rise, but we have a number of players busy with exams and such who absolutely can't play. They can play later in the season, but such variability of absence is something we need to account for.
I would say the same applies for DeSPA, we're only 8 people and I know I will not be able to make it on a few Saturdays already, not to mention everyone else. If the larger teams are worried about not getting to field all their players, donate some players :d
On March 07 2013 07:17 traceurling wrote:
And postponements are really annoying to deal with...and even then sometimes the player just might derp off
this.
|
On March 07 2013 06:43 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2013 06:29 pebble444 wrote:
Everything else is nice and gay but i really don' t get why it should not be BO7. And don' t tell me teams are small cause some teams have 15 players and the two teams with less (Sun Kan and Despa) have 8. We have 10 ^^ @ Sentenal: PP is always an option, I'm sure that that 1 extra game (in Bo7ace vs. Bo5 no ace format) can be covered by at least 1-3 of the extra players the team has at some point that week. Like you said ^^
Well, what I see as a possible problem is those 1-3 extra players are already going to be stretched to cover the first 5 games. It might be a problem, it might not. Its only one extra game, afterall. The problem comes in when/if teams already have difficulty getting a full line-up with 5, without that one extra game. And this probably varies between teams.
|
lets just play a standard bo7 SPL style.. 
that wont be too hard right?
|
On March 07 2013 08:38 Sinedd wrote:lets just play a standard bo7 SPL style.. that wont be too hard right?
Thats the entire point of contention right now. Some people say it won't be, others are saying it will. I think it might be possible, but it will definitely be hard. I also think this should have been decided a while ago lol...
|
pebble, Sun Khan has only 8 players, are you sure you guys can afford a BO7?
I remember from previous experiences that even with ~14 players in Ace we barely got people to play BO7 in DRTL2....
|
On March 07 2013 08:51 fabiano wrote:
pebble, Sun Khan has only 8 players, are you sure you guys can afford a BO7?
I remember from previous experiences that even with ~14 players in Ace we barely got people to play BO7 in DRTL2....
We have 10 and we have never failed to field a line-up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
