EPTPan-American Team League: Discussion - Page 2
| Forum Index > Brood War Tournaments |
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
| ||
|
XenOsky
Chile2303 Posts
| ||
|
RaNgeD
United States733 Posts
| ||
FlaShFTW
United States10257 Posts
and im also down to play with people! | ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4339 Posts
| ||
|
Eywa-
Canada4876 Posts
If the matches are played a bit all over the place over the course of a week, best of 3 is the better option. If you're logging in for a single match, it's pretty lame and you don't get any of the perks that best of 1s bring to this type of event. | ||
|
FyRe_DragOn
Canada2056 Posts
On August 10 2017 03:23 Jealous wrote: Why do you think Bo3 is better? I'm curious  I think there are pros and cons to both Bo3 and Bo1, so it'd be interesting to hear your thoughts on why one is clearly above the other. After all, there must be a reason why SPL used Bo1.I donno what format SPL is in, but im sure they had some broadcasting time restraints that wouldve made bo1 the preferred format. Speaking as a player, I want to win and I want that win to represent accurately that I am the superior player over my opponent. Since many different scenarios can occur in which I or my opponent can demonstrate our skill, the best format is one that reduces variance the most, meaning the most games possible to cover the most amount of strategical ground. But, since people have shit to do other than BW too, bo3 is generally a good option that usually takes less than an hour and can be fitted into a persons day without too much difficulty while still being vastly superior to just 1 game. ALso, 2-3 games are just more fun to play than one, regardless of the variance argument. I dont log into BW to play a single game, I log on to play multiple games, one is not enough. | ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4339 Posts
DragOn would the rest of PaiN be joining in the tournament as well? | ||
|
FyRe_DragOn
Canada2056 Posts
| ||
|
SuGo
United States681 Posts
And agree to what some others said ... why would this be on iccup. 1.16 is about to die (it already is). Host it on 1.19 / SCR on one of the servers... maybe East. | ||
|
SchAmToo
United States1141 Posts
| ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4339 Posts
On August 10 2017 09:36 ProtossGG wrote: Add me please, aka SuGo ... no team right now. I'll probably play on the same team as Dragon though, whatever that is. Or whatever team wants to add me; I personally don't care that much. And agree to what some others said ... why would this be on iccup. 1.16 is about to die (it already is). Host it on 1.19 / SCR on one of the servers... maybe East. Yep. I've mentioned in the post how US-W or US-E are the servers required and how there will be home teams and visitor teams. No worries. 1.19 is the required patch. I was only linking the iccup rules because there is no reason to copy/paste what is already provided for those new and unfamiliar with the rules. On August 10 2017 09:55 SchAmToo wrote: Gimme a schedule to cast these without work being in the way and I'm 100% interested. Awesome. Thanks Scham | ||
|
Jealous
10256 Posts
In other words, in a Bo3 series we can roughly predict 90% of the matches because of the wide disparity in skill in the foreign BW scene, unless people randomly got matched up who are roughly of the same skill. In a Bo1, the unknown lower ranked player can use the wealth of replays of better known players and TL's resources to give themselves some minor chance of upsetting Goliath as David. As a result, series will have the potential to be more interesting to watch because far fewer games will become a predictable. It forces players to practice one map per week and to create special strategies for them, because if it's Loser Pick in Bo3 then SFT-Lancerx can just fire up FS or CB in game two and force CSS-RandomScrub to potentially have to come up with two well-rehearsed builds and cheeses on two different maps in order to eke out a single set win. This is part of what made SPL so incredible to watch - like when Jaedong (almost?) lost to Reality's proxy rax into fast fac into fast wraith build which was designed for that map and player. It makes broadcasting all of the games a more tangible exercise, which also minimizes the need for back and forth communication between multiple parties about which games to recommend. It makes a potential ace match format much more viable and interesting. In short, the main reason why I prefer Bo1 is because it evens the playing field slightly if someone is willing to put in the effort, thus making it more hype for everyone. The fact of Brood War is that the "better" player doesn't always win, and it should be that way in the competitive sphere as well. | ||
|
Radivel-X17
Canada144 Posts
Here's the two parts that I think would be better, and why: 1 - Each "Team" should have a max of 2-3 (or 4 maybe) players. Why? A number of reasons. 1a - More teams = more participants. Any "league" like this will benefit from increased activity, so if you have clans submitting more than one team, it highly increases participation. Participation is the lifeblood of events like this, and the more you as the participants get to actually be involved, the more likely you are to keep track, remember to login at your time, etc. 1b - People get to play more. If you have a clan with 14 people in it here, then only a few get to play. If you have, say, WCE Team A, Team B, Team C, then you end up with 3x as many people playing. Honestly, in my perfect world idea, each team would be only 2 players and everyone would always show up and everyone would get to play, but the idea is that you have a paired team play most of the games and someone else would fill in if they can't show due to real life, etc. 1c - Rivalries develop more easily, breeding more intense competition. This can include between clans (all of results of all WCE vs SCC matches) or even rivalry inside the clan (Can SCC Team B beat SCC Team A?) Better competition leads to better desire to be good and beat your friends, be #1, etc. There are definitely arguments to NOT follow this, but to me, I think this is the best way to go about it. I want everyone to feel like being a participant of the event is important, and the best way to do that is to ensure activity and participation. I don't want people to sign up and do nothing, and I'm fairly certain most players also don't want to sign up and do nothing. 2 - My idea of a match would be like this - note, I did not explain this to Psy very well, so he didn't ever see this. Game 1 - Team 1, Player 1 -vs- Team 2, Player 1 Game 2 - Team 1, Player 2 -vs- Team 2, Player 2 (those would happen at the same time) Game 3 - 2v2 Match Game 4 - Team 1, Player 2 -vs- Team 2, Player 1 Game 5 - Team 1, Player 1 -vs- Team 2, Player 2 (these would also happen at the same time, if they are required) That way, if it was needed, it would be like a small round robin, each of the two players on each team would play the other two. I know the allure of the "Ace" match though, so maybe Psy's way is better. I just think like a robot, all logic! I didn't delve into BO1 or BO3 though - I figured that would be up for discussion later. Those are my thoughts - discuss if you like! | ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4339 Posts
I'm not opposed to having smaller teams. I am unsure of the round robin idea. The fun of an ACE match, if it comes to it, is nobody knows WHO is playing until it is decided, leaving almost no prep time for either player. That's why ACE matches were always fun to watch in ProLeague because you KNEW it was generally going to be the "best" players facing off in an epic match. And in response to Jealous. I feel exactly as you did. That's what made ProLeague so damn fun to watch, watching UpMaGiC pull some funky (although now it's sad because he was match fixing) build out of nowhere and somehow WINNING (or LOSING hilariously) but that also allowed other "lesser" players a chance to beat Bisu, JD, Flash, Boxer, etc. | ||
|
castleeMg
Canada779 Posts
| ||
|
SuGo
United States681 Posts
On August 10 2017 10:17 Jealous wrote: My reasoning for Bo1 is specifically because it creates the chance for upsets and one-trick builds that come as a result of studying the map, the opponent, and related VODs of progamers. If SuperForeignTeam signs up as SFT-SuGo, SFT-DragOn, etc. And they are matched with CPL Student Squaaaad with CSS-evilEye, CSS-darkmatter, etc. Then it will be a roll 100% of the time with CSS never getting a single match win. But in Bo1, a real upset can happen if a player prepares well enough. SuGo got beaten by (CSS-)PiSan in CSL many years ago, and dropped games to other lesser players, often because they came up with an innovative cheese. There was a game between Bard and draw that was insane in CSL and it was for all the marbles for our team - it really raises the stakes and the antics. In other words, in a Bo3 series we can roughly predict 90% of the matches because of the wide disparity in skill in the foreign BW scene, unless people randomly got matched up who are roughly of the same skill. In a Bo1, the unknown lower ranked player can use the wealth of replays of better known players and TL's resources to give themselves some minor chance of upsetting Goliath as David. As a result, series will have the potential to be more interesting to watch because far fewer games will become a predictable. It forces players to practice one map per week and to create special strategies for them, because if it's Loser Pick in Bo3 then SFT-Lancerx can just fire up FS or CB in game two and force CSS-RandomScrub to potentially have to come up with two well-rehearsed builds and cheeses on two different maps in order to eke out a single set win. This is part of what made SPL so incredible to watch - like when Jaedong (almost?) lost to Reality's proxy rax into fast fac into fast wraith build which was designed for that map and player. It makes broadcasting all of the games a more tangible exercise, which also minimizes the need for back and forth communication between multiple parties about which games to recommend. It makes a potential ace match format much more viable and interesting. In short, the main reason why I prefer Bo1 is because it evens the playing field slightly if someone is willing to put in the effort, thus making it more hype for everyone. The fact of Brood War is that the "better" player doesn't always win, and it should be that way in the competitive sphere as well. This is a valid point. What if myself, Dragon, Ty2, and Babo make a 4 player team like that. If it's BO3, it could be difficult for other teams to compete. Not saying it's not fun that way, but I can understand it from Jealou's perspective. No offense, but overall, "Americas" (north/south) isn't really that strong. How many A-players are there actually? I still vouch BO3, because I feel the better player should prevail and that's what matters more than winning a bo1 using some random all-in play. | ||
|
SCC-Faust
United States3736 Posts
| ||
|
Jealous
10256 Posts
On August 10 2017 14:27 SCC-Faust wrote: I don't know if I want to enter now that sugo/dragon/ty2/babo formed a super team. And they all want Bo3!!! Way to kill BW guys, dead game. | ||
|
Greth
Belgium318 Posts
I'm not quite comfortable, nor do I feel I have the authority to restart ~NoHunters, but team NHFFA might be a thing. | ||
| ||
