|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49496 Posts
On December 13 2010 23:26 mechler wrote:
This is fascinating and introduces a few new things to the esports scene. Many of these things have been used before, but the way they're combined produces an intriguing advancement system. I'm very pleasantly surprised!
EDIT: Reading more pages now and... what's this about best-of-1? bo1 is the worst thing to incorporate in any tournament and needs to be treated like the plaguu.
its still round robin,so if the first player you play against plays cheese,you can still beat the other 2 players since you are also expecting them to cheese.if all 4 players play in a cheese its highly probable that the groups end with tie breakers.Whether we have cheese/all-in plays or not,its highly possible that only the better players get through.
does this make sense to anyone?sometimes what I say may not relate to what I mean
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On December 13 2010 22:49 Reasonable wrote:
So, is there a list of S-class players yet?
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/GSL_Rankings
Also for people saying Bo1 sucks, it does, but it's round robin like other people mentioned and there's no way a round robin is going to be Bo3 when there are so many simultaneous tourneys going on on a monthly basis (Tastosis would die)....unless they get Jason Lee to cast the A-levels.
|
Cheese is really just as effective, or ineffective, in a BO3 as in round robin BO1, despite what people claim.
|
And add that like I said before and if you read the OP that there are 2 groupstages of Bo1. The consistent player will be rewarded rather than play of the day.
I'd be amazed if a player could cheese all their games in 2 groupstages to get to the single elimination championships. If someone gets cheesed then the next opponent will probably be very cautious.
And would be fun if it happens vs sSKS :d the anti cheese man :D
|
On December 13 2010 23:47 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 23:26 mechler wrote:
This is fascinating and introduces a few new things to the esports scene. Many of these things have been used before, but the way they're combined produces an intriguing advancement system. I'm very pleasantly surprised!
EDIT: Reading more pages now and... what's this about best-of-1? bo1 is the worst thing to incorporate in any tournament and needs to be treated like the plaguu. its still round robin,so if the first player you play against plays cheese,you can still beat the other 2 players since you are also expecting them to cheese.if all 4 players play in a cheese its highly probable that the groups end with tie breakers.Whether we have cheese/all-in plays or not,its highly possible that only the better players get through. does this make sense to anyone?sometimes what I say may not relate to what I mean + Show Spoiler +
I get what you're saying. I still hate use of Bo1 in any capacity because it doesn't allow for adaptability to be measured. I want a more true skill emergence from group play. Dreamhack's SC2 tournament was disappointing in this regard and I think that a lot of people will agree with that assessment.
Look, the person (people?) citing Bo1 as the most realistic logistical choice is missing a point. Sure, there's one studio, four booths/computers, and they need to make the best use of that space that they possibly can. That ignores a few pretty key points:
1) Cost for four more computers and booths is negligible. Not only are the computers covered by the sponsorship -- it would be easy to get a sponsor to handle those things as part of the terms -- but the cost is literally a few thousand dollars. That's a drop in the bucket when you consider the use that they're going to get out of them and the scale of the purse.
2) Time has to be measured as both the fixed and variable components, just like in really base-level accounting (anyone else able to remember all the way back to the first year of college?)
The fixed component is the time that it takes a player to walk in to the booth, set down the things they brought with them (headphones, keyboard, mouse, drink, jacket, etc.) and get the peripherals set up. Then they have to get logged in to their account and make sure that the game settings are the way that they need them. In the GSL Opens we see this go on during the other matches. That's why they have four booths instead of just two. I'll address the minimization of fixed time cost due to overlap in a moment. I'm not ignoring it.
The variable time cost is the amount of time that the games take to play. This can range from 5min per game up to 50min per game -- we include loading time and post-game winner/loser display since they happen X times where X is the number of games played.
3) The best interest of the tournament is served by creating the best interest for the competitive scene as a whole. Any cases where validity can be questioned serve to diminish the importance of the organization/tournament. Even in small ways, these criticisms still accumulate.
The fact that we can negate/diminish the fixed time cost means that we should primarily care about the variable time cost which is strictly equal to the number of games played. In a Bo3, I'll assume 2.5games/match which is 150% more than 1game/match. That's a significant time cost, I realize, but I'd actually rather have less games commentated (I'd still like replays for everything thankyouverymuch) than go to Bo1. I'm not sure what the aggregate feeling is on that, but that's my stance, easily.
At 150% higher time cost for the tournament as a whole (you could get in to fixed cost of opening the studio, too -- i.e. how much time do you waste by finishing early/late) You negate virtually all of that time by having matches overlap.
I guess that if a Bo3 means that matches overlap and we get half of the group-play matches cast instead of the 100%, well I'm for that because it means less emergence of cheese to the later group and bracket play, where all (most? more?) of the games are cast.
Maybe I'm introducing a new issue entirely, but it seems like a relevant debate at this point. Casting half of the matches still sets the bar higher than any other tournament going on, doesn't it?
And this post says nothing of my feelings on the importance of adaptability as a measurable game skill. I'll do that in a later one, I guess, since this one already ran... "long."
|
On December 14 2010 00:26 mechler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 23:47 BLinD-RawR wrote:On December 13 2010 23:26 mechler wrote:
This is fascinating and introduces a few new things to the esports scene. Many of these things have been used before, but the way they're combined produces an intriguing advancement system. I'm very pleasantly surprised!
EDIT: Reading more pages now and... what's this about best-of-1? bo1 is the worst thing to incorporate in any tournament and needs to be treated like the plaguu. its still round robin,so if the first player you play against plays cheese,you can still beat the other 2 players since you are also expecting them to cheese.if all 4 players play in a cheese its highly probable that the groups end with tie breakers.Whether we have cheese/all-in plays or not,its highly possible that only the better players get through. does this make sense to anyone?sometimes what I say may not relate to what I mean + Show Spoiler + I get what you're saying. I still hate use of Bo1 in any capacity because it doesn't allow for adaptability to be measured. I want a more true skill emergence from group play. Dreamhack's SC2 tournament was disappointing in this regard and I think that a lot of people will agree with that assessment. Look, the person (people?) citing Bo1 as the most realistic logistical choice is missing a point. Sure, there's one studio, four booths/computers, and they need to make the best use of that space that they possibly can. That ignores a few pretty key points: 1) Cost for four more computers and booths is negligible. Not only are the computers covered by the sponsorship -- it would be easy to get a sponsor to handle those things as part of the terms -- but the cost is literally a few thousand dollars. That's a drop in the bucket when you consider the use that they're going to get out of them and the scale of the purse. 2) Time has to be measured as both the fixed and variable components, just like in really base-level accounting (anyone else able to remember all the way back to the first year of college?) The fixed component is the time that it takes a player to walk in to the booth, set down the things they brought with them (headphones, keyboard, mouse, drink, jacket, etc.) and get the peripherals set up. Then they have to get logged in to their account and make sure that the game settings are the way that they need them. In the GSL Opens we see this go on during the other matches. That's why they have four booths instead of just two. I'll address the minimization of fixed time cost due to overlap in a moment. I'm not ignoring it. The variable time cost is the amount of time that the games take to play. This can range from 5min per game up to 50min per game -- we include loading time and post-game winner/loser display since they happen X times where X is the number of games played. 3) The best interest of the tournament is served by creating the best interest for the competitive scene as a whole. Any cases where validity can be questioned serve to diminish the importance of the organization/tournament. Even in small ways, these criticisms still accumulate. The fact that we can negate/diminish the fixed time cost means that we should primarily care about the variable time cost which is strictly equal to the number of games played. In a Bo3, I'll assume 2.5games/match which is 150% more than 1game/match. That's a significant time cost, I realize, but I'd actually rather have less games commentated (I'd still like replays for everything thankyouverymuch) than go to Bo1. I'm not sure what the aggregate feeling is on that, but that's my stance, easily. At 150% higher time cost for the tournament as a whole (you could get in to fixed cost of opening the studio, too -- i.e. how much time do you waste by finishing early/late) You negate virtually all of that time by having matches overlap. I guess that if a Bo3 means that matches overlap and we get half of the group-play matches cast instead of the 100%, well I'm for that because it means less emergence of cheese to the later group and bracket play, where all (most? more?) of the games are cast. Maybe I'm introducing a new issue entirely, but it seems like a relevant debate at this point. Casting half of the matches still sets the bar higher than any other tournament going on, doesn't it? And this post says nothing of my feelings on the importance of adaptability as a measurable game skill. I'll do that in a later one, I guess, since this one already ran... "long."
Casting less matches so there can be Bo3 is a solution but GOM wouldn't allow that as that means there could be a possible game that is super exciting and like the best series in the event or something but there is no one that can cast it. Having all the matches casted is the best to ensure the spectators (you and me) can watch and see every match live. Having it on VOD is nice and all but the results will get you spoilered and tell me if you like to watch a match which has already been spoilered? Only on the best matches right? Well they want the maximum viewers possible so casting every match means they'll get the maximum viewers. Simply because if a match sucks then no one will recommend it but they still would have more people watching the game live than on vod.
In the end it all comes down to money and less viewers = less advertising = less money from sponsors. Bo3 would ensure more viewers for more money but that would be at the cost of the schedules themselves which would mean delaying the next event/play day and maybe even the grand finals stadium which costs alot to maintain (and to book)?
Bo1 isn't the best option but it is the right option for the groupstages. There are other solutions but having 2 groupstages of Bo1 will ensure that the possibility of cheesers will be less as you're going to face different opponents. Having 1 group stage with Bo3 and then cheesing all Bo3 would be worse than the before mentioned.
Cheesing in a Bo1 or Bo3 doesn't really matter because it can happen and can be successfull depending on the player and the opponent who you're cheesing on. The chances of a player doing cheese all games in a Bo3 depends on the player. In a Bo1 it's more likely but you'll have to be able to defend cheeses anyways if you want to win the event since you're going to face it atleast once in every single elimination match.
Example of cheese in a Bo3 would be DAVIT vs Genius? I believe he cheesed 2 games which DAVIT won both in the ro64 of the GSL. The point is cheese will always be used depending on the player regardless if it's a Bo1 or Bo3.
|
I realize that cheese is inevitable. I suppose I should clarify my point; it's probably the point that a lot of people with the same stance are trying to make.
"Cheese" or "all-in strategies" (call them different if you want, I do, but that is semantic to the point) maximize the introduction of adaptation to the games. It is possible to think of StarCraft II matches as a measurement of macro, micro, and strategy. This is probably the most common separation of skills. I would add in a fourth. Adaptation.
I'll define "adaptation" as the ability to change attention allocation OR change implementation for any one of the three standard skills. While not quantifiable, they are all very definable. The ability to change things that are well defined is an important skill to measure. So long as the winner in any later round will measure a players ability to adapt, the earlier rounds must also measure those players' skill against each other.
In this way, best-of-one contests between two players in any capacity is tantamount to playing a custom map where each player is given a specific number of tier 1 units and must use them to attack the other player. I realize that this is a radical comparison, but so to -- TO ME -- is removing the ability of players to change their play, gameplan, or attention allocation.
When you add in the more quantifiable common belief that best-of-X matches more truly advance the better player as X increases, the necessity to avoid best-of-one matches becomes paramount. If a players' union were ever to form, this should be one of their foremost concerns.
That and chairs. Bad chairs ruin tournaments. 
|
Yes I get what you and all others are saying. But it is just not realistic to do this for now.
When 2 players play more games then the better player will win. I agree on this completely.
I'll define "adaptation" as the ability to change attention allocation OR change implementation for any one of the three standard skills. While not quantifiable, they are all very definable. The ability to change things that are well defined is an important skill to measure. So long as the winner in any later round will measure a players ability to adapt, the earlier rounds must also measure those players' skill against each other.
Then shouldn't a better player be able to adapt to the Bo1 format? Some others have mentioned that any player can take any game from anyone. This is correct but there is always a chance for every player to take a game from any player. The consistent player thus the better player will be called the champion because of it's ability to adapt to all the aspects the tournament asks for. In this case this is Bo1 in the groupstages. I know it is bad to have Bo1 but the better player has to prove he can be consistent in his plays right? There is a single elimination and with a BoX later then he needs to adapt even on more circumstances. The circumstances are extreme in the beginning but with 2 groupstages the better players will advance because they are consistent in their plays. Whether it is by cheesing (would be very ballsy to be able to pull it off) or just by normal macro plays.
The consistent player thus the better player deserves to go through and why shouldn't a good player be able to adapt to a Bo1?
In this way, best-of-one contests between two players in any capacity is tantamount to playing a custom map where each player is given a specific number of tier 1 units and must use them to attack the other player. I realize that this is a radical comparison, but so to -- TO ME -- is removing the ability of players to change their play, gameplan, or attention allocation.
This would be true if both players play with the same race and have the same tier 1 units. This will not always be the case. With different races there will be different benefits which is what makes each race unique and good in certain aspects now.
No one is removing a player's ability to change their play/gameplan or attention allocation. It is still the player's own choice to change or not. Bo1 might be able to have a greater risk of cheesing but a player should always be weary of cheeses as that is what makes a good player. A player that take all things into consideration. Which is also a part of consistency in my opinion.
A good comparison would be Tester vs FreeSaga in GSL1 where Freesaga went 1-1 (2nd game FreeSaga won with cheese) and in the third game with everything in favour of him tried to cheese Tester out of the game but didn't win the game in the end. It was in a bo3 but the point still stands that even if it's a Bo1 or Bo3 or even a Bo1000000.
The better player needs to be able to adapt to any change and so should it be able to adapt to a Bo1. It is ridiculous but it has worked out for BW so why can't it work out for SC2? If it really is not working out then there will be adjustments but for now everyone should just wait and see how it goes.
|
Shann:
Our opinions deviate chiefly on the definition of adaptation. You're suggesting that adaptation comes from within games. I did a poor job of defining my use of the term, ultimately, and that is perhaps where the argument has fallen apart. I believe that adaptation is shown through multiple games. Adapting within a game is chiefly macro, micro, or strategic adaptation based on scouted information.
In this way, I can't disagree entirely because your point is clearly that adaptation is within games as well. I do agree with that, and that isn't something that I had focused on in my previous replies. You have a good point, there. You also seem to concede that adaptation is more strongly demonstrated as the number of games increases. That seems easy to agree with, in fact.
Ultimately our points don't boil down to which format (BoX) is ideal for determining a winner, but what format is ideal for the format and time allowed. You're suggesting that there are logistic limitations that suggest that Bo1 is a necessary concession to the optimal tournament, correct? I can see that end very clearly.
I suppose, then, our discussion should focus on what the logistical limitations for the GSL tournaments will be. Have they stated yet that they are having monthly tournaments? The GSL opens were almost monthly, achieving four complete results across four months (with a little room to spare from Dec 18 through the end of the year). What are the hours of operation to be? Could group play minimize pre-game discussion in favor of increasing our advancement configuration? Are there other areas for improvement that can make Bo3 (the standard that we can use in this discussion) a realistic possibility? Do they need a second pair of casters or more people working logistics? What are the real costs? Are those costs offset then by increase in advertising time that is available because of better coverage? If that is the primary revenue stream, aren't more games a boon to that model? What do the advertisers want? Is it as important as the validity of the tournament? Is a Bo1 tournament of questionable validity? Does the players' collective opinion matter enough to influence any of these points?
That's a long stream of questions, I realize. They all seem relevant, though, and while I don't expect total transparency from a business like GOMTV, I am curious if we can't derive some of the answers ourselves.
|
On December 14 2010 03:43 mechler wrote:
Shann:
Our opinions deviate chiefly on the definition of adaptation. You're suggesting that adaptation comes from within games. I did a poor job of defining my use of the term, ultimately, and that is perhaps where the argument has fallen apart. I believe that adaptation is shown through multiple games. Adapting within a game is chiefly macro, micro, or strategic adaptation based on scouted information.
In this way, I can't disagree entirely because your point is clearly that adaptation is within games as well. I do agree with that, and that isn't something that I had focused on in my previous replies. You have a good point, there. You also seem to concede that adaptation is more strongly demonstrated as the number of games increases. That seems easy to agree with, in fact.
Ultimately our points don't boil down to which format (BoX) is ideal for determining a winner, but what format is ideal for the format and time allowed. You're suggesting that there are logistic limitations that suggest that Bo1 is a necessary concession to the optimal tournament, correct? I can see that end very clearly.
I suppose, then, our discussion should focus on what the logistical limitations for the GSL tournaments will be. Have they stated yet that they are having monthly tournaments? The GSL opens were almost monthly, achieving four complete results across four months (with a little room to spare from Dec 18 through the end of the year). What are the hours of operation to be? Could group play minimize pre-game discussion in favor of increasing our advancement configuration? Are there other areas for improvement that can make Bo3 (the standard that we can use in this discussion) a realistic possibility? Do they need a second pair of casters or more people working logistics? What are the real costs? Are those costs offset then by increase in advertising time that is available because of better coverage? If that is the primary revenue stream, aren't more games a boon to that model? What do the advertisers want? Is it as important as the validity of the tournament? Is a Bo1 tournament of questionable validity? Does the players' collective opinion matter enough to influence any of these points?
That's a long stream of questions, I realize. They all seem relevant, though, and while I don't expect total transparency from a business like GOMTV, I am curious if we can't derive some of the answers ourselves.
You're suggesting that there are logistic limitations that suggest that Bo1 is a necessary concession to the optimal tournament, correct?
Yes due to the schedule for 2011.
I suppose, then, our discussion should focus on what the logistical limitations for the GSL tournaments will be. Have they stated yet that they are having monthly tournaments?
A player is able to participate in 12 tournaments if he qualifies for all of them. The organisation themselves however will be hosting 17 tournaments. 12 major tournaments + the 5 GSL A league tournaments. This means 5 months long there will be 2 tournaments running at the same time.
What are the hours of operation to be?
Probably like the current GSL's are running with the A league running even earlier (similar to the Ro64 matches.
Edit on this one.
If GOM decides to air the A league on TV then it would appear that the above time will probably be the case.
Edit 2 on this one.
Ro64 in the GSL in day 2,3 and 4 starts at 13:00 KST(GMT+9) and at 19:00 KST(GMT+9).
So A league would probably be aired at 13:00 KST and S league at 19:00 which would be the best optimal air time for running 2 tournaments at same time in a month.
Edit 3:
Now that I think it more. The A league might as well be for the downtime each month that the S league is not running so this way a Bo3 could be done I think.
The important thing is that we all need to know is what format the A league is. After that you can probably determine the schedule for A and S league.
Could group play minimize pre-game discussion in favor of increasing our advancement configuration?
Yes this is possible but this depends on the players setting up which can not really be controlled as they need to warm up and need every thing to set up which is different for every player.
Are there other areas for improvement that can make Bo3 (the standard that we can use in this discussion) a realistic possibility?
Having more staff and studio's. This includes commentators and casters. This means the organisation can run multiple matches at the same time and let the public view 1 certain match while premium can decide which games they can watch is a possibility.
What are the real costs?
Junkka once said they were understaffed for everything they're doing at GOM.
With the cost of the tickets they tried to ask in the beginning before GSL1 you can guess that this is the case.
Are those costs offset then by increase in advertising time that is available because of better coverage?
Partially. They can have some improvements in this area as the English stream does not get advertising at all. They get their money from the sponsor for advertising for the Korean viewers. The English viewers who are paying are basically maintaining the quality of the stream.
If that is the primary revenue stream, aren't more games a boon to that model?
I would think so but they would have discussed this already and I can only tell from what I read.
What do the advertisers want?
lol the word advertisers in itself should explain what they want.
Is it as important as the validity of the tournament?
This is only something the advertisers and tournament host could answer to.
Does the players' collective opinion matter enough to influence any of these points?
Yes the public opinion if big enough can influence their decisions on some points. It happens sometime but don't expect it to happen every time.
You do know that most of the answers above is just by reading and having some common logic of all news of GOM right ? 
|
Dam, Its gonna be really though competition for the new players to get into the actual GSL. Thanks for the graphical presentations (conti, puzzl), they helped a lot!
|
I don't think that all of those answers are as set in stone as your matter-of-fact tone suggests. I'm clearly intelligent enough to understand a healthy level of assumption when it's useful, but I'm saying that without these things laid out specifically by the company, it isn't possible to realize the logistical limitations.
Is there any aggregate data on GSL matches thus far? Average game length? Match length? Etc.? How much of the time is pre-game, post-game, actual game. Is 2.5 as an estimate the realistic factor or does it lean one way or the other? There are plenty of variables to uncover here.
I'm just saying that Bo3 might be possible from a logistics standpoint. You're saying that it isn't. Let's math it out!
|
On December 14 2010 04:45 mechler wrote:
I don't think that all of those answers are as set in stone as your matter-of-fact tone suggests. I'm clearly intelligent enough to understand a healthy level of assumption when it's useful, but I'm saying that without these things laid out specifically by the company, it isn't possible to realize the logistical limitations.
Is there any aggregate data on GSL matches thus far? Average game length? Match length? Etc.? How much of the time is pre-game, post-game, actual game. Is 2.5 as an estimate the realistic factor or does it lean one way or the other? There are plenty of variables to uncover here.
I'm just saying that Bo3 might be possible from a logistics standpoint. You're saying that it isn't. Let's math it out!
I'm not saying it isn't. I clearly hope there will be a Bo3.
You can't take in an average game into account and then adapt your schedule onto it because that would mean disaster. Sometimes it may work but other time it will probably fail even harder.
I edited the time part 3 times and basically it depends on what the format and schedule for the A league is going to be. If it's really going to be played on same days as the GSL S League then extending time for the groupstages for the GSL S league is going to be difficult from a logistics point of view. If it's not then it should be do-able to make Bo3 groupstage happen but you can't calculate anything about the schedule of the A league since no one knows what the format is and what playdays it's going to be played at.
Edit:
Sorry but
I don't think that all of those answers are as set in stone as your matter-of-fact tone suggests.
I basically implied that it isn't entirely sure what I'm saying but as far as the news has been given on some aspects it's like what I'm saying since I just quote everything.
It can change just like the 64 A league to 32 A league players which implies there will be some kind of format change for the A league.
|
You can actually take the mean game length and the median game length and draw conclusions based on the distribution of game lengths. That is useful information for logistical mapping of the event. Yeah, you obviously account for longer games. That's a normal part of logistics. You can realistically map out how often you should go over the allotted time, etc. Find the margin of error and do a realistic analysis of what is possible. I might start analyzing some of this later just to put math behind it, like I suggested we all should.
My apologies for offending, I suppose. I didn't mean to patronize. Suggesting that your answers to my myriad of questions were tonally "matter-of-fact" wasn't meant that way. It was my way of suggesting that we dig deeper. Perhaps that wasn't the best way to communicate that to you. Again, I apologize. You seem to have a realistic perspective of what we're investigating. I'll try to do information gathering when time allows. For now, I need to get a bit more work done.
|
On December 14 2010 05:13 mechler wrote:
You can actually take the mean game length and the median game length and draw conclusions based on the distribution of game lengths. That is useful information for logistical mapping of the event. Yeah, you obviously account for longer games. That's a normal part of logistics. You can realistically map out how often you should go over the allotted time, etc. Find the margin of error and do a realistic analysis of what is possible. I might start analyzing some of this later just to put math behind it, like I suggested we all should.
My apologies for offending, I suppose. I didn't mean to patronize. Suggesting that your answers to my myriad of questions were tonally "matter-of-fact" wasn't meant that way. It was my way of suggesting that we dig deeper. Perhaps that wasn't the best way to communicate that to you. Again, I apologize. You seem to have a realistic perspective of what we're investigating. I'll try to do information gathering when time allows. For now, I need to get a bit more work done.
Ahhh now that you mention that I can see how you are telling that. It's very subtle though which I'm really bad at getting like you know now.
You seem to have a realistic perspective of what we're investigating.
Yes I always try to be realistic to all matters since I just am like that.
I'll try to do information gathering when time allows.
I'll be looking forward to that when you post your research.
|
On December 12 2010 04:00 puzzl wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ev5Jc.jpg)
This is great, really fantastic, but am I missing something regarding the Code A tournament? I don't see any mention in the OP about how that is structured. All I can see is that the top 8 get a chance to progress to Code S through the 'Code S Determination' playoffs, and that the bottom 16 Code A players have to play offline qualifiers for 12 of the 16 Code A spots. It doesn't seem to suggest exactly how those top 8 and bottom 16 are determined.
Doesn't it seem logical to assume that the Code A tournament is structured in the same way as the Code S one, with 8 groups of 4, but essentially with two finals? It would then look like this:
R1 of Code A - RO32
8 groups of 4
Top 2 from each group progress to R2
Bottom 2 are eliminated and go to the offline prelims for the next season
R2 of Code A - RO16 - Quarter Finals
4 groups of 4
Top 2 from each group progress to R3
Bottom 2 from each group remain Code A for next season
R3 of Code A - RO8 - Semi Finals
4 single-elimination semi finals series
Winners advance to R4
Losers go into the standard Code S Determination games
R4 of Code A - RO4 - Finals
2 Single-elimination finals series
Winners pick their opponents in the Code S Determination games
Losers go into the standard Code S Determination games
If they do it this way, then the only difference between the schedule for S Class and A Class is that S Class has a single extra series (the Grand Final). This makes sense from an organisational standpoint, as GomTV then don't need to devise different tournament procedures for the different Codes.
The main problem is broadcasting. Assuming they keep the same number of games per series as in GSL 3 (BO3 for RO32/16, BO5 for RO8, BO7 for RO4 and Grand Final), then broadcasting even Code S alone will give 71 series, compared to 63 for GSL 3. Add in the Code S Determination series and you get another 16 series, with the Code A tournament (even if they do it the way you suggest in your awesome graphic) adding at least another 16, and if my guess turns out to be accurate, it adds 70.
I think it's unlikely that GomTV will cast either the Code A tournament nor the Code S Determination games. If they do, then GomTV will simply have to get more casters, because I doubt even the super-enthusiastic Korean casters could handle broadcasting ~100-150 series a month. Even the extra 8 series that the Code S tournament will add will be hard enough on them, especially if GomTV keeps insisting on the week-long break between the semi finals and the Grand Final.
|
On December 14 2010 07:27 The Touch wrote:This is great, really fantastic, but am I missing something regarding the Code A tournament? I don't see any mention in the OP about how that is structured. All I can see is that the top 8 get a chance to progress to Code S through the 'Code S Determination' playoffs, and that the bottom 16 Code A players have to play offline qualifiers for 12 of the 16 Code A spots. It doesn't seem to suggest exactly how those top 8 and bottom 16 are determined. Doesn't it seem logical to assume that the Code A tournament is structured in the same way as the Code S one, with 8 groups of 4, but essentially with two finals? It would then look like this: R1 of Code A - RO328 groups of 4 Top 2 from each group progress to R2 Bottom 2 are eliminated and go to the offline prelims for the next season R2 of Code A - RO16 - Quarter Finals4 groups of 4 Top 2 from each group progress to R3 Bottom 2 from each group remain Code A for next season R3 of Code A - RO8 - Semi Finals4 single-elimination semi finals series Winners advance to R4 Losers go into the standard Code S Determination games R4 of Code A - RO4 - Finals2 Single-elimination finals series Winners pick their opponents in the Code S Determination games Losers go into the standard Code S Determination games If they do it this way, then the only difference between the schedule for S Class and A Class is that S Class has a single extra series (the Grand Final). This makes sense from an organisational standpoint, as GomTV then don't need to devise different tournament procedures for the different Codes. The main problem is broadcasting. Assuming they keep the same number of games per series as in GSL 3 (BO3 for RO32/16, BO5 for RO8, BO7 for RO4 and Grand Final), then broadcasting even Code S alone will give 71 series, compared to 63 for GSL 3. Add in the Code S Determination series and you get another 16 series, with the Code A tournament (even if they do it the way you suggest in your awesome graphic) adding at least another 16, and if my guess turns out to be accurate, it adds 70. I think it's unlikely that GomTV will cast either the Code A tournament nor the Code S Determination games. If they do, then GomTV will simply have to get more casters, because I doubt even the super-enthusiastic Korean casters could handle broadcasting ~100-150 series a month. Even the extra 8 series that the Code S tournament will add will be hard enough on them, especially if GomTV keeps insisting on the week-long break between the semi finals and the Grand Final.
It's Bo1 for groupstage 1 and groupstage 2. Which drastically reduces the amount of games like you have calculated 
This way it seems Bo1 will even it out like the GSL Opens and it looks like if you adjust those numbers that they'll broadcast the S,A League and the up/down matches.
Edit:
Did some of my own math real quick.
Seems that if Group stage 1 and 2 is Bo1 then you're going to have 8 groups of 6 games each with 2nd groupstage 4 groups of 6 games each which comes down to 72 matches of Bo1 in the 2 groupstages which alone is about even with a GSL Open.
Quarter finals is Bo3 (confirmed)
Semi-finals is Bo5 (confirmed)
Grand Finals Bo7 (confirmed)
Then all of these added up and you're going to have a minimum of 90 matches if all series are won straight without a loss for each winner till 101 matches maximum for just the S code League.
If the A league is even remotely similar and you're going to go over aproximately 200 games.
200 games and then to think Bo3 in a groupstage :O insane amount of games.
Edit2:
Added math for those who are curious.
Groupstage with a Bo1
Player 1 vs Player 2
Player 1 vs Player 3
Player 1 vs Player 4
Player 2 vs Player 3
Player 2 vs Player 4
Player 3 vs Player 4
Groupstage 1
6 x 8 = 48 games
Groupstage 2
6 x 4 = 24 games
Quarter finals
4 Bo3 = 8-12 games
Semi finals
2 Bo5 = 6-10 games
Grand finals
1 Bo7 = 4-7 games
Total amount of games is 90-101 matches.
Source
Edit3:
With Bo3 in group stages you're going to have 6-12 additional matches each group in each groupstage. This comes down to
12-18 x 8 = 96-144 games for groupstage 1
and 12-18 x 4 = 48-72 games for groupstage 2.
This comes down to 144-216 matches for groupstage in Bo3 format.
Total would be 162-245 matches for S league with groupstages in Bo3.
Bo3 for groupstages would mean 72-144 more games than it is now.
GSL Open calculation mistake.
GSL Open has 144-221 games in a season. So a Bo3 would be like a GSL Open but there is also the A league so it's even more than now.
|
Why not make group stages Bo2? They're copying Champions League anyway. That would make things better with maps as well since each player could pick one map.
|
On December 14 2010 09:42 jalstar wrote:
Why not make group stages Bo2? They're copying Champions League anyway. That would make things better with maps as well since each player could pick one map.
162 games with bo2. They'll have to cast every one of them. It's going to be very hard to reach that number.
A reminder would be that the GSL Open has a maximum of 63 games.
With a Bo2 in groupstages you're going to have between 101-162 games. That's atleast 1.5-2.5 times the amount of the GSL Open games can have. And we know how tight their schedule already was.
Would be really impressive if they manage to succeed with 1 studio. Hope so but realistically speaken it won't happen for now. Maybe in the future where they can broadcast matches on multiple studio's / tv channels.
|
DAVIT gives up his chance for CODE A!! so as for GROUP A, 6players for 4 spots
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
