|
The system of GSL in 2011 has turned out a little different from what most people thought it would be.
1. As you all know, GSL in 2011 consists of Code S, Code A and an offline preliminary. Each league is considered major, minor and just an offline preliminary respectively.
Good News: 4 spots of Code A are guaranteed for top foreign players who has won recent big tourneys or shown considerable performances in non-Korean competitions.
Nothing has determined yet regarding what kind of support system GSL could provide with (could be really nothing, otherwise it would be announced soon)
Bad News: The number of Code A has shrunk to 32.
2. Code S
The Code S league divides 32 players into 8 groups. Top 2 in each group advance to Round 2.
Round 2 also divides 16 players into 4 groups. Top 2 in each group advance to Round 3 (quarter final). The disqualifiers in Round 2 stay in Code S for next season
The quarter final (from this point on) is a single elimination tournament. Whoever wins, advances.
Now, the 3rd and 4th ranked players in Round 1 have to face elimination challenge with top 8 Code A players. 16 players from 3rd and 4th ranked players in each group of Code S + 8 from Code A, so 24 players in total, fight for 16 spots of Code S next season.
Interestingly, top 2 of Code A players can choose who they want to play against (each one of 3rd and 4th ranked players).
The rest are randomly grouped and they will play for the Code S spots.
The Code S determination matches give the 3rd ranked players a bit of an advantage.
That is, 3rd ranked player vs Top 8 Code A takes place first. Then, whoever loses will play against 4th ranked player. The loser fails to stay in Code S and belongs to Code A for next season.
This system seems complicated, but no player would give up so early when he goes 0-2 in Round 1. The system motivates players to play hard in order to keep the advantageous spot during the Code S determination period.
3. Code A
16 Code A players stay or have a chance to advance to Code S. In other words, Top 8 Code A will play Code S determination matches as explained above. The rest 8 of Top 16 stay in Code A.
The lower 16 players in Code A have to go through the offline preliminary for 12 spots of Code A.
The 4 spots are guaranteed to top foreign players.
- This is awesome. As far as I know, players in Code S get paid generously (minimum $900?) + huge prizes that GSL is proud of.
I don't know how much professional gamers get paid in their team but if you can play well in GSL, it's not that bad to spend some time in Korea playing SC2.
This is only for GSL. I did not include other 7 big competitions organized by Blizzard: Ladder tournament (Feb, May, Aug, Nov), World Championship (June, Oct) and Blizzard Cup (Dec)
EDIT: Top 8 of Code S (players who advance to quarter final) get seeds for next season. For example, Top 8 in GSL 4 will be seeded into each 8 group of GSL 5.
|
Can you source this please? Also thanks for the info.
I'm also quite curious, does this mean only people who have already qualified for code a and code s will be playing? Seems complicated and a little confusing to me =.=
|
If this is true, then props to gomtv for reserving a few foreigner spots for the Code A tourneys.
|
|
|
omg this is great news for the foreign scene. GSL and Blizzard are really doing a good job trying to make this game a real international sport. NICE!
|
Canada13379 Posts
i wil wait for the tstosis explanation to understand this well lol its confusing tbh
|
On December 11 2010 14:48 `Zapdos wrote:
Can you source this please? Also thanks for the info.
I'm also quite curious, does this mean only people who have already qualified for code a and code s will be playing? Seems complicated and a little confusing to me =.=
There will be 12 code a spots up for grabs every tournament but they have to beat the lowest ranked Code A players for the spot. There are also 4 spots guaranteed for the best foreigners at the time. At least that's my understanding.
|
2011 is going to be an awesome year for starcraft
|
Awesome news about the foreigner spots!!
|
On December 11 2010 14:57 Cynoks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 14:48 `Zapdos wrote:
Can you source this please? Also thanks for the info.
I'm also quite curious, does this mean only people who have already qualified for code a and code s will be playing? Seems complicated and a little confusing to me =.= There will be 12 code a spots up for grabs every tournament but they have to beat the lowest ranked Code A players for the spot. There are also 4 spots guaranteed for the best foreigners at the time. At least that's my understanding.
Ahh i see that's the offline preliminary business? :o
|
groups =/
I prefer the method they're using right now to group play, though from a spectator's perspective you get to see a lot of great matchups.
|
Sounds pretty complicated but once it actually goes into effect I think it might be quite easily followed.
|
It sounds like a system of Relegation which would be awesome. There isn't hardly any relegation in professional American sports, and it's always been a competitive mechanic I've envied of the Europeans.
|
This is probably the best way tournament brackets for this caliber could be done. It's simply amazing and I don't see any improvements that could be made.
|
On December 11 2010 15:01 HollowLord wrote:
groups =/
I prefer the method they're using right now to group play, though from a spectator's perspective you get to see a lot of great matchups.
Groups are just fine as long as the matches aren't BO1. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for them to keep it BO3.
|
That sounds really complicated. Hopefully someone who understands it will produce a graphic.
|
lol finally I benefit from affirmative action
|
What, little baby spaces for foreigners only? I know Team Liquid loves foreigners in GSL but if a foreigner is actually good wouldn't they just be placed into Code A anyway instead of having to have a spot reserved for them?
|
|
|
51377 Posts
|
can someone clarify the Code A qualifications, dont really understand that part as well. honestly i prefer that foreigners play for the 4 foreigner spots rather than having it based on past tourney results. players in servers like LA/SEA etc will be disadvantaged
|
Code S players get paid for simply being Code S? What's the $900 reference? Per month? Week? Huh?
|
On December 11 2010 15:13 k20 wrote:
What, little baby spaces for foreigners only? I know Team Liquid loves foreigners in GSL but if a foreigner is actually good wouldn't they just be placed into Code A anyway instead of having to have a spot reserved for them?
It's pretty big risk to take as a foreigner though, to go to Korea and have to get through both offline qualifiers and the A-class tournament, just to get into S-class. I'm guessing GomTV did this to make sure that they will have a decent amount of foreigners at all times.
|
No bo3 sounds pretty sucky. GL to players getting cheesed by nobodies.
|
All this explaining means nothing without the big picture to go along with it. How many players in March GSL.
|
On December 11 2010 15:13 k20 wrote:
What, little baby spaces for foreigners only? I know Team Liquid loves foreigners in GSL but if a foreigner is actually good wouldn't they just be placed into Code A anyway instead of having to have a spot reserved for them?
I think the reasoning is that foreigners would typically stay for a month or two in Korea (unless if they have a great sponsor like TLAF) to test their skill and try their luck and this rule makes it much more accessible for them. Once they have everything set up, it's going to be a complete bitch to qualify for code A. they'll probably have to go through some preliminary tournaments just to get ranked in Code A, and then they probably have to grind and be successful for several "seasons" of GSL before they can remotely reach code S. I mean if they're not up to par with the Code A korean players, they're going to be outed in the first round anyhow and it's no harm done.
|
Cool stuff, I'm excited to see some more awesome Starcraft.
|
This sounds awesome. Relegation matches are some of the most exciting.
|
Sooo, will there be a Code S GSL tournament and Code A GSL tournament after this shuffling around of players is done? Or, how will it work? Are these fights described here the only ones that are going to happen each season?
Sounds like an awesome system, people don't fall off instantly, and there are many chances to prove your skills.
|
On December 11 2010 14:51 crazeman wrote:
If this is true, then props to gomtv for reserving a few foreigner spots for the Code A tourneys.
Agreed. I'm glad they're giving foreigners who could not fly out to Korea the first 3 seasons a chance to compete.
|
On December 11 2010 15:24 crazeman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 15:13 k20 wrote:
What, little baby spaces for foreigners only? I know Team Liquid loves foreigners in GSL but if a foreigner is actually good wouldn't they just be placed into Code A anyway instead of having to have a spot reserved for them? I think the reasoning is that foreigners would typically stay for a month or two in Korea (unless if they have a great sponsor like TLAF) to test their skill and try their luck and this rule makes it much more accessible for them. Once they have everything set up, it's going to be a complete bitch to qualify for code A. they'll probably have to go through some preliminary tournaments just to get ranked in Code A, and then they probably have to grind and be successful for several "seasons" of GSL before they can remotely reach code S. I mean if they're not up to par with the Code A korean players, they're going to be outed in the first round anyhow and it's no harm done.
Im not sure how to feel about this, since I agree with both points.. Hopefully code A isn't such a thing that you need to grind through for years to get too.. I don't want this to be like SC1 where you need to go through all these qualifiers to get to the top. If your the best, you should be able to get to the top asap imo.
|
On December 11 2010 15:16 b_unnies wrote:
can someone clarify the Code A qualifications, dont really understand that part as well. honestly i prefer that foreigners play for the 4 foreigner spots rather than having it based on past tourney results. players in servers like LA/SEA etc will be disadvantaged
- Top 8 in Code A + 17-32nd Code S players play for 16 spots of Code S.
- 17-24th players in Code S (that is, 3rd in each group of Code S) vs Top 8 in Code A takes place first.
- The losers plays against 25-32nd players in Code S (that is, 4th in each group of Code S).
- Whoever loses, falls into Code A.
- Variation: Top 2 in Code A can choose who they want to play against.
- Code A: Top 8 will advance to Code S determination matches.
Top 9-16 stays in Code A
Top 17-32 gets eliminated and has to go through the offline preliminary.
12 spots of Code A are reserved to the offline Preliminary
4 spots of Code A are guaranteed to top foreigners
|
Oh, I like the four code A spots reserved for "top" foreigners. I wonder how they'll decide which tournaments are "big enough", or something.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49626 Posts
On December 11 2010 15:34 koppik wrote:
Oh, I like the four code A spots reserved for "top" foreigners. I wonder how they'll decide which tournaments are "big enough", or something.
MLG and IEM......I don't know what else though...
|
On December 11 2010 15:19 avilo wrote:
No bo3 sounds pretty sucky. GL to players getting cheesed by nobodies.
All the post says is group play for the first 2 rounds and single elimination after that. Nothing about it being bo1 or bo3.
|
On December 11 2010 15:39 Cynoks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 15:19 avilo wrote:
No bo3 sounds pretty sucky. GL to players getting cheesed by nobodies. All the post says is group play for the first 2 rounds and single elimination after that. Nothing about it being bo1 or bo3.
People with a poor understanding of english or lack tournament knowledge often confuse the word elimination with bo1.
Are all the matches going to be broadcasted (code a, prelims, code a vs code s, etc)?
|
That's a lot of Starcraft to watch... kind of like basketball and NFL season packages it might be impossible to catch it all.
|
I like it, but if this is going to be the format then what about the Code A decision matches next week?
According to the other thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=175239 these Code A qualifiers will decide all of the remaining Code A places, so does this mean that the reserved spots for foreigners don't start until the second Code A tournament?
|
On December 11 2010 15:51 FuRong wrote:I like it, but if this is going to be the format then what about the Code A decision matches next week? According to the other thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=175239 these Code A qualifiers will decide all of the remaining Code A places, so does this mean that the reserved spots for foreigners don't start until the second Code A tournament?
Yes. The reserved 4 spots for top foreigners will be in effect later when GSL 5 takes place.
|
Anybody think it would be cool if we started having a GSL like tournament but with teams? I think I'd rather see team vs team like I saw in SC1, I'm not sure what tournament it was. But like you'd have Hwaseung Oz vs Sk Gaming or something like that. I think there's more excitement when teams fight against eachother and it helps competitive play by having groups practice and strategize together to make the team stronger.
|
On December 11 2010 15:31 Brewers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 15:16 b_unnies wrote:
can someone clarify the Code A qualifications, dont really understand that part as well. honestly i prefer that foreigners play for the 4 foreigner spots rather than having it based on past tourney results. players in servers like LA/SEA etc will be disadvantaged - Top 8 in Code A + 17-32nd Code S players play for 16 spots of Code S. - 17-24th players in Code S (that is, 3rd in each group of Code S) vs Top 8 in Code A takes place first. - The losers plays against 25-32nd players in Code S (that is, 4th in each group of Code S). - Whoever loses, falls into Code A. - Variation: Top 2 in Code A can choose who they want to play against. - Code A: Top 8 will advance to Code S determination matches. Top 9-16 stays in Code A Top 17-32 gets eliminated and has to go through the offline preliminary. 12 spots of Code A are reserved to the offline Preliminary 4 spots of Code A are guaranteed to top foreigners
That's the Code S qualifications, im talking about the Code A qualifications
|
In my (terrible) attempts to create a graphic to explain this, I think I succeeded. Or maybe I failed miserably and this is just terrible...
I kind of ran out of colors as well so I was forced to use yellow (does it hurt your eyes?)
+ Show Spoiler [Image] +
Hopefully this helps anyone that had trouble understanding what was being said. :D
|
I kinda need a little bit more explanation though. From what I have read is
1. Whoever lose in Round 2 will stay as Code S
2. Whoever win in Round 3 advances to the Main Stage (big prize stage)
3. The top 8 Code A people will challenge loser in Round 1 for Code S (3rd or 4th)
4. The winner in the Challenge will be promoted to Code S (or stay) and the loser will be demoted to Code A (or stay)
5. Offline preliminaries will have a chance to be promoted to Code A.
then who will be in the Main Stage...? only the people that win in Round 3...
It is kinda vague to me.
Please explain it to me since I'm kinda confused
Thank you for explaining and sorry for bother you guys.
|
So,
If Huk wanted to qualify he would have to get to the top of the Korean Ladder and take out a Code A player
OR
Win MLG again.
That sounds insanely hard.
|
This is great. 2011 FTW!!! Thank u GOM.
I have no idea how they came up with such a brilliant system.
|
I really enjoy the group play aspect. It aligns more like a league than a random tournament. It will be much easier to determine seeds and skill level. One thing I wonder - will 'groups' be static?
Ex: Lets say group A consists of these players in Season 1:
Idra
Fruit Dealer
Foxer
Tester
Now lets say Idra and Tester advance, leaving Fruit Dealer and Foxer up for regulation. Foxer ends up being Regulated and July gets promoted
Will Season 2 be:
Idra
Fruit Dealer
Tester
July
Or will groups be re-drawn every season at random/ranking?
|
This is even more convoluted than the old OSL/ODT format.
|
Woah sounds pretty interesting especially the 900$ guaranteed monthly Income. Isnt that like ~30k a month Gom has to pay and dont forget the price money too. I wonder how much an A-Teamer gets paid in Sc1. Somebody like Hyuk xD or Bogus
I wonder how the e-sports veterans feel about this system. We need a SotG afap and Nazguls opinion !!!
|
On December 11 2010 16:03 Defacer wrote:
So,
If Huk wanted to qualify he would have to get to the top of the Korean Ladder and take out a Code A player
That sounds insanely hard.
Ummm no :s the ladder has nothing to do with it.
If he wants to get code A he is either given it by GOM for being a top 4 foreigner (interested to see how they will determine these foreigner spots) or he goes through the off-line preliminary (same as the current off-line qualifiers except there are only 12 spots not 64)
He can then play in Code A tournies and have a chance at getting in to code S qualifier by finishing top 8, and then winning a Code S qualifying match...
Pretty straight forward really, I like the system, You really have to deserve your code, but it's not impossible.
|
Reading the OP gave me a headache. What happened to "smash the person in front of you until there's anyone left in front of you to smash" ?
I suppose it'll be more clear in practice than in text.
|
the german readmore.de yesterday just published a completly different explenation of the new system.
They actually said, it will be as given a 32 S-Class-players toruney.
Then there are 20 A-Class slots determinded to those, who had enough points in GSL1-3. (known here on TL)
then there is this 3 group tourney for 21 ppl, top4 of each group qualify for code A
AND...
they say, there will be more public qualifier for CodeA, allowing another 32 ppl in, making it 64 CodeA-player overall.
As i said, the article was published yesterday. So what is true, what is not? 
|
However nice it is that they're reserving spots for foreigners, I don't agree with the decision. I am a devoted fan of several foreign players, but if one of them got in solely because he was reserved a spot and not because he earned it himself, I will not cheer him on in the GSL.
|
That is insane amount of games to broadcast.
For each code,
Early group stage has 8group x 6 games = 48 games
Second group stage has 4 groups x 6 games = 24 games
Then I guess it turns into tournament system
for Ro8 which means 4 x Bo5 = 20
for Ro4, 2 x Bo7 = 14
for final Bo7 = 7
So we have 113 possible games for each code, (I just assume amount of game for code A to be same, of course it is different)
And there is code S qualification match also, and ALL of these games need to be done in one month!
I wonder how Gomtv is going to broadcast both Code S and Code A, cause it seemed to be almost impossible.
|
On December 11 2010 15:57 Sheekthief wrote:In my (terrible) attempts to create a graphic to explain this, I think I succeeded. Or maybe I failed miserably and this is just terrible... I kind of ran out of colors as well so I was forced to use yellow (does it hurt your eyes?) + Show Spoiler [Image] +Hopefully this helps anyone that had trouble understanding what was being said. :D
not trying to be a jerk at all but that actually did hurt my eyes. but im in a dark room, so who knows, and i already understand the system from reading it once.. im not sure why everyone is so confused.
|
Wait, reserved spots for foreigners? That's nonsense, we don't need a handicap, our guys are kicking ass in the GSL, I feel a little insulted that they think we need a hand out...
EDIT: I suppose this is good in that it would keep foreigner viewership higher, but still, ehh.. doesn't sit too well with me :\
|
On December 11 2010 16:48 No_Roo wrote:
Wait, reserved spots for foreigners? That's nonsense, we don't need a handicap, our guys are kicking ass in the GSL, I feel a little insulted that they think we need a hand out...
Koreans have the home field advantage of actually having a life in the local area. If pro gaming fails for a Korean, he can very easily go do something else.
I'd say pro gamer (wannabe) foreigners who travel to Korea have a lot more invested than local residents.
In that sense I think it's fair to give a small percentage of spots to foreigners.
|
On December 11 2010 16:05 Siffer wrote:
I really enjoy the group play aspect. It aligns more like a league than a random tournament. It will be much easier to determine seeds and skill level. One thing I wonder - will 'groups' be static?
Ex: Lets say group A consists of these players in Season 1:
Idra
Fruit Dealer
Foxer
Tester
Now lets say Idra and Tester advance, leaving Fruit Dealer and Foxer up for regulation. Foxer ends up being Regulated and July gets promoted
Will Season 2 be:
Idra
Fruit Dealer
Tester
July
Or will groups be re-drawn every season at random/ranking?
I don't know this for sure so don't quote me but I'd assume (hope) that they would reseed the players into groups based on the results from the previous season. That would make the most sense to me at least. The rest of it is very well planned out I can't imagine they'd randomly group the 1st and 2nd place players from the previous season into the same group in round 1 of the Code S tournament.
|
On December 11 2010 16:48 No_Roo wrote:
Wait, reserved spots for foreigners? That's nonsense, we don't need a handicap, our guys are kicking ass in the GSL, I feel a little insulted that they think we need a hand out...
EDIT: I suppose this is good in that it would keep foreigner viewership higher, but still, ehh.. doesn't sit too well with me :\
We will see a lot more foreigners in the tournament this way. If those foreigner spots were't freebies then foreigners would need to travel there just for a chance to make it into code A. It is a huge commitment to go there for a chance to get into code A, after which they need to get into the top half of code A, just to have a chance to get into code S.
After saying that, how do players get into the top half of code A? Is it through a full tournament like the code S tournament?
|
On December 11 2010 16:34 Tanatos wrote:
That is insane amount of games to broadcast.
For each code,
Early group stage has 8group x 6 games = 48 games
Second group stage has 4 groups x 6 games = 24 games
Then I guess it turns into tournament system
for Ro8 which means 4 x Bo5 = 20
for Ro4, 2 x Bo7 = 14
for final Bo7 = 7
So we have 113 possible games for each code, (I just assume amount of game for code A to be same, of course it is different)
And there is code S qualification match also, and ALL of these games need to be done in one month!
I wonder how Gomtv is going to broadcast both Code S and Code A, cause it seemed to be almost impossible.
It's not that surprising if you think about how many games GOMTV broadcast in Round 64 a day.
In addition, Korean commentators for Code A league are already determined, meaning code A games will be on GOMTV.
|
On December 11 2010 16:29 Chairman Ray wrote:
However nice it is that they're reserving spots for foreigners, I don't agree with the decision. I am a devoted fan of several foreign players, but if one of them got in solely because he was reserved a spot and not because he earned it himself, I will not cheer him on in the GSL.
Have to say I agree.
|
On December 11 2010 16:34 Tanatos wrote:
That is insane amount of games to broadcast.
For each code,
Early group stage has 8group x 6 games = 48 games
Second group stage has 4 groups x 6 games = 24 games
Then I guess it turns into tournament system
for Ro8 which means 4 x Bo5 = 20
for Ro4, 2 x Bo7 = 14
for final Bo7 = 7
So we have 113 possible games for each code, (I just assume amount of game for code A to be same, of course it is different)
And there is code S qualification match also, and ALL of these games need to be done in one month!
I wonder how Gomtv is going to broadcast both Code S and Code A, cause it seemed to be almost impossible.
GSLs 1-3 had over 180 possible games each. So this isn't that much, really.
|
I like this system. Buuuuuuuutttt...
did they say anything about maps?
And where can I find info on:
"I did not include other 7 big competitions organized by Blizzard: Ladder tournament (Feb, May, Aug, Nov), World Championship (June, Oct) and Blizzard Cup (Dec)"
|
|
|
sick system cant wait for gsl
|
How many GSL's will there be in 2011. Is it still monthly?
Will Code A tournaments be broadcast with english commentary?
|
So confused lol...was this a direct translation from a korean site? What's the link?
|
WOOOT!!!! That pretty much guarantees HuK is in I think. Gives me a new reason to watch GSL.
|
Germany1287 Posts
I don't think foreigners who now permanently live in Korea (like Grack and Loner) are counted towards the 4 foreign wild cards. When I first read it, I interpreted this as invitee-spots for players who haven't yet or normally wouldn't participate in the GSL (like Fenix or White-Ra). Presumptions, presumptions, presumptions. Anyway, this would further increase the heat around the question who would "deserve" it and what would be "fair", better not think about that.
On December 11 2010 15:39 BLinD-RawR wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 15:34 koppik wrote:
Oh, I like the four code A spots reserved for "top" foreigners. I wonder how they'll decide which tournaments are "big enough", or something. MLG and IEM......I don't know what else though...
Surely, the tournaments with the biggest prize pot will be taken into consideration. MLG, IEM, Blizzcon, Dreamhack. Of these, only MLG will provide a constant stream of results, so I can see the MLG series claim (or even further solidify) their No.1 top tournaments spot outside of Korea.
If the other big prize tournaments with around or less than 5k€/$ (like Psi-Storm, BDL, ESL) will be counted in, then surely with less credit towards the players than the "big ones".
|
This looks good. The foreigner invite thing is... strange. On one hand, it'd be nice to see some faces from elsewhere around the world, but if they aren't good enough to compete without the foreigner exception, then why have them there?
Code S/A stuff looks nice though.
|
This is completely speculation with no evidence but...
According to this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=170463
All the players with 350 points are going to be competing for the 12 remaining code A spots. Sen also has 350 points but is not included in that. Could either be because he doesn't plan on going and they already know that, or because they already designated one of the 4 foreigner spots for him maybe? Really curious to see how they assign those spots.
|
What i get from this is that Code A players have to defeat 2 Code S players to acquire Code S whereas the Code S only has to lose once to get knocked back into COde A.
And Big Hi5 to GOM for securing 4 spots for Foreigners.
|
Edit misunderstood this completely... I don't get it yet.
|
this sounds pretty cool, especially at the inclusion of the 4 foreigners
|
The foreigner exception thing is necessary since foreigners shouldn't have to buy a 2nd or 3rd copy of SC2 to compete. It would essentially be an entrance fee that Koreans wouldn't have to pay (not that GOMTV has a problem with that for viewers)
|
On December 11 2010 15:31 Brewers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 15:16 b_unnies wrote:
can someone clarify the Code A qualifications, dont really understand that part as well. honestly i prefer that foreigners play for the 4 foreigner spots rather than having it based on past tourney results. players in servers like LA/SEA etc will be disadvantaged - Top 8 in Code A + 17-32nd Code S players play for 16 spots of Code S. - 17-24th players in Code S (that is, 3rd in each group of Code S) vs Top 8 in Code A takes place first. - The losers plays against 25-32nd players in Code S (that is, 4th in each group of Code S). - Whoever loses, falls into Code A. - Variation: Top 2 in Code A can choose who they want to play against. - Code A: Top 8 will advance to Code S determination matches. Top 9-16 stays in Code A Top 17-32 gets eliminated and has to go through the offline preliminary. 12 spots of Code A are reserved to the offline Preliminary 4 spots of Code A are guaranteed to top foreigners
Thanks, got it now
|
I'm sad that some people here aren't seeing how awesome this system is. This is the coolest setup for any sport ever. You get to see the best stick around at the top of Code S so they get to develop storylines and such, you have the drama of relegation to Code A, you have round robin and single elimination, you have offline qualifiers, it's like everything possible. Anyone who says "too complicated, do it like GSL 1,2,3" is just being lazy.
The foreigner thing is awesome too. It's not like they didn't earn the spots if they do the invites well, and it's only code A anyway. It's awesome because lets say someone like QXC or Painuser gets hot next year and wins IEM, MLG and Dreamhack. Do you think they'll find sponsors to send him to Korea to go through qualifiers, with no guarantee they'll even get on TV? That's a huge risk, and no team besides Liquid and maybe EG and Fnatic can do that anyway.
The reserved spots are like in golf or tennis tournaments. In golf, you can get to the US open by being the US Amateur champion or a top finisher in the Masters, among other ways (I might be a little incorrect here, but you get the gist). You can also qualify for the US open, and anyone with a super low handicap is allowed to do qualifications. If someone has shown in other tournaments that they are really good though, then why make them go through qualifiers? Very, very cool of them to do that for foreigners if you ask me.
What's also cool is GOM would probably not have done this if it wasn't for players like Jinro, Idra, Loner and Sen proving to the Koreans that the rest of the world can hang with them consistently.
|
A flowchart based on my understanding of the OP (could be wildly wrong):
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Dp2vFl.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/xXcH0.jpg)
|
Haha got to laugh at the guys saying foreigners who get reserved a spot haven't "earned it". Qualifying for code A is certainly easier than winning something like MLG, it's just that it's way too risky to fly to korea just participate in qualifiers for mere code A. Indeed, I still expect some foreigners to turn down the invitation. Moreover, since they only get code A and to actually compete for meaningful price money you've to be code S, they'll have to "prove" themselves regardless.
|
Where the heck does gsl get all the money to do so many awesome things ?!
anyway that's quite cool really !
|
On December 11 2010 17:15 ThunderGod wrote:
did they say anything about maps?
It doesn't look like it, but this is going to be one of the most important issues.
The round robin stages will probably be bo1s, so map choice is gonna play a huge part...
|
This is pretty nifty, a smart system. Thanks for the info =)
|
I'm a little disappointed now that it's happening. I really liked the big open tournaments.
I don't want to watch the same tournament month after month. And I liked knowing that every player in the ro64 had earned his spot by winning, not by invites.
Things like morrow winning the IEM tournament that he wasn't even originally invited to make me wary of all these codes and special qualifiers.
I guess we'll have lots of fan favorites at the very least. I'm also really hoping they change up the maps.
I'll be watching in any case, can't wait to see it when it actually airs =)
|
confusing as it is, props for the info.
gomtv has not set an estimated date for this event?
|
Can't say I really agree with giving foreigners spots in code-a based on US and EU tourneys.
I think they are doing this because some foreigners failed to qualify for even code A, despite moving to korea recently.
Why not have everyone earn their spots legitimately under the same rules as everyone else?
|
Code A is qualifiers for code S. These moronic claims they don't deserve code A by, for instance, winning the biggest foreigner tournament are rage inducing. Koreans are free to fly to MLG and win and they'll get invited too. Gomtv recognizes, unlike apparently certain TL "experts", that the other tournaments also have high level players and encouraging them to participate in GSL is a good thing.
|
Reserved slots seem nice.
They can inject foreigners.
Who'll hold S longest?
|
This is great.
This means it's difficult to get demoted from Code S but still not too hard to become Code S for newcomers.
Can't wait when they announce some sort of PL for sc2 :D
|
On December 11 2010 15:12 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
lol finally I benefit from affirmative action
Thats exactly what I was thinking. Not sure how well that will be received in Korea, but apparently it isn't a big deal. I'm glad we'll be able to see our foreign heroes over there more often!
|
The hilarious thing is that this happens all the time in foreigner tournaments as well and no one whines about that. Blizzard better not invite GSL winners to blizzcon but rather force them to go through qualifiers as well.
|
Even though it's nice for the foreign scene to have 4 guaranteed spots in Code A, i think as a competitive league you should have the best competitors in there. Much too political for my taste.
But on the other hand it seems like they're holding on to this ridiculous BO1, ending up in a mess anyway. The maps aren't balanced and you will see way too much cheesy all-ins. Leaving the allaround better player losing. No doubt it's a viable option but, well at least imo, you'll get much more enjoyment out of good solid macro games.
I would really love to see Blizzard announcing a mapping competition or just using some of the ICCup maps.
|
I'm a bit confused on one part. Does this mean that the already code s players are the only ones competing for that current tournament? And everything else is just to qualify to compete for next months main stage?
|
Would the "top 4 foreigners invite" include or exclude those that are code S ?
By that I mean, right now we have:
- Idra
- Jinro
That are Code S
And Loner and TLO that are code A (from how I understand it).
Would that be the 4 foreigner spots, or are they saying that it will be Idra, Jinro, + 4 more?
|
On December 11 2010 19:26 robertdinh wrote:
Can't say I really agree with giving foreigners spots in code-a based on US and EU tourneys.
I think they are doing this because some foreigners failed to qualify for even code A, despite moving to korea recently.
Why not have everyone earn their spots legitimately under the same rules as everyone else?
The system with offline qualifiers hugely benefits Koreans already. I can't see what's wrong with even it out a wee bit by reserving 4 spots to notable foreigners, after all it's just Class A we're talking about.
If it turns out foreigners are so far behind that it hurts the quality of GSL I'm sure they will rethink the decission but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
|
On December 11 2010 14:46 Brewers wrote:.
Good News: 4 spots of Code A are guaranteed for top foreign players who has won recent big tourneys or shown considerable performances in non-Korean competitions.
hope we see Sjow and Naama in there.. cant think of other two
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49626 Posts
On December 11 2010 20:27 mistgun_EU wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 14:46 Brewers wrote:.
Good News: 4 spots of Code A are guaranteed for top foreign players who has won recent big tourneys or shown considerable performances in non-Korean competitions.
hope we see Sjow and Naama in there.. cant think of other two
HuK.....Moonglade!!!
|
On December 11 2010 20:24 aebriol wrote:
Would the "top 4 foreigners invite" include or exclude those that are code S ?
By that I mean, right now we have:
- Idra
- Jinro
That are Code S
And Loner and TLO that are code A (from how I understand it).
Would that be the 4 foreigner spots, or are they saying that it will be Idra, Jinro, + 4 more?
4 guarenteed foreign players in Code A + whoever foreigner will make it to Code S.
TLO won't participate in the near future so he was dropped out of Code A.
|
The foreigner designated spots are there to ensure that Code A tournament has higher quality of players, not only to keep the foreign community happy and interested. The way things are right now, top 4 non-Koreans are easily good enough for Code A and probably better than the average Korean Code A player. There's nothing wrong in giving the foreigners a fair chance to retain that status rather than forcing them to move to Korea and then having them go through a ridiculous qualifier gauntlet that knocks out Tester regularly.
I for one am happy that they didn't take on the "if you want to compete compete, we don't give a fuck" attitude of the BW establishment. It makes no sense to ignore the fact that it's a Korean tournament in Korea. This rule is only there to even things out and prevent the skill gap from snowballing just because the center of the Starcraft scene happens to be on the other side of the globe.
|
Damn, I was hoping for a League system not a round robin + knockout stages. Oh well... hopefully they'll make a team Pro-league soon. Not sure what i think about gifting 4 slots, although they could just reword that and say the slots are for winners of tournament x/y/z or whatever.. might even convince some korean players to go to foreign tournaments.
|
On December 11 2010 20:33 Cep wrote:
4 guarenteed foreign players in Code A + whoever foreigner will make it to Code S.
TLO won't participate in the near future so he was dropped out of Code A.
Thank you.
I misunderstood it somehow and confused myself Thanks for clearing it up for me.
|
On December 11 2010 20:36 Talin wrote:
The foreigner designated spots are there to ensure that Code A tournament has higher quality of players, not only to keep the foreign community happy and interested. The way things are right now, top 4 non-Koreans are easily good enough for Code A and probably better than the average Korean Code A player. There's nothing wrong in giving the foreigners a fair chance to retain that status rather than forcing them to move to Korea and then having them go through a ridiculous qualifier gauntlet that knocks out Tester regularly.
So where's the point in having 4 guarenteed spots if they're better players anyway?
Foreign teams take a risk moving their players to korea. Not only financially. As i already said, imo, maps aren't that balanced and invite for cheesy all-ins. So everyone could end up like Tester/Nada/...
But having 4 guarenteed spots, sounds quite political to me.
|
I'm really glad there will be a league system and not only tournamets, as it really sucked seeing some players play only 1-2 games per month. And it's fairly easy to understand how the system will work.
Will the group matches be bo3 or bo1?
|
On December 11 2010 20:51 Odoakar wrote:
I'm really glad there will be a league system and not only tournamets, as it really sucked seeing some players play only 1-2 games per month. And it's fairly easy to understand how the system will work.
Will the group matches be bo3 or bo1?
BO1
|
graph would be nice. but system sounds interesting.
BO1 ??? WHAT?
|
On December 11 2010 20:48 Cep wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 20:36 Talin wrote:
The foreigner designated spots are there to ensure that Code A tournament has higher quality of players, not only to keep the foreign community happy and interested. The way things are right now, top 4 non-Koreans are easily good enough for Code A and probably better than the average Korean Code A player. There's nothing wrong in giving the foreigners a fair chance to retain that status rather than forcing them to move to Korea and then having them go through a ridiculous qualifier gauntlet that knocks out Tester regularly. So where's the point in having 4 guarenteed spots if they're better players anyway? Foreign teams take a risk moving their players to korea. Not only financially. As i already said, imo, maps aren't that balanced and invite for cheesy all-ins. So everyone could end up like Tester/Nada/... But having 4 guarenteed spots, sounds quite political to me.
It is political, if it wasn't they'd just be qualifying the legitimate way, if they deserve it they will make it.
I also think people saying that the top foreigners could easily qualify for code A need to take a step back and look at results. Some foreigners qualified for GSL, many did not. I would hardly say they would easily qualify for code A when some struggled to even get to the ro64 in these early GSL tourneys.
To me it's pretty obvious they did this so that the people who moved to korea in hopes of making CODE S that failed miserably to do so, will still have a semi easier route to try and get in there.
And as much as people want to see foreign representation, I personally would rather see a tournament run fairly where every player is held to the same standards. Not "koreans are held to this standard and a few foreigners have spots reserved for them".
|
Seriously anyone who knows anything about SC shouldn't be surprised it's BO1 since BW tournaments used the same format. It's better than single elimination BO3 that's currently used, especially as there's an incentive to go 1-2 instead of 0-3.
|
On December 11 2010 21:02 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 20:48 Cep wrote:On December 11 2010 20:36 Talin wrote:
The foreigner designated spots are there to ensure that Code A tournament has higher quality of players, not only to keep the foreign community happy and interested. The way things are right now, top 4 non-Koreans are easily good enough for Code A and probably better than the average Korean Code A player. There's nothing wrong in giving the foreigners a fair chance to retain that status rather than forcing them to move to Korea and then having them go through a ridiculous qualifier gauntlet that knocks out Tester regularly. So where's the point in having 4 guarenteed spots if they're better players anyway? Foreign teams take a risk moving their players to korea. Not only financially. As i already said, imo, maps aren't that balanced and invite for cheesy all-ins. So everyone could end up like Tester/Nada/... But having 4 guarenteed spots, sounds quite political to me. It is political, if it wasn't they'd just be qualifying the legitimate way, if they deserve it they will make it. I also think people saying that the top foreigners could easily qualify for code A need to take a step back and look at results. Some foreigners qualified for GSL, many did not. I would hardly say they would easily qualify for code A when some struggled to even get to the ro64 in these early GSL tourneys. To me it's pretty obvious they did this so that the people who moved to korea in hopes of making CODE S that failed miserably to do so, will still have a semi easier route to try and get in there. And as much as people want to see foreign representation, I personally would rather see a tournament run fairly where every player is held to the same standards. Not "koreans are held to this standard and a few foreigners have spots reserved for them".
It's like you've never seen a tournament besides GSL. Do you realize almost all foreigner tournaments have seeds and certain players get invited? Do you realize GSL invites players based on success in another tournament, that is to say GSL 1-3? Please read the thread.
Having said that, yes it's obviously beneficial for them to have more foreigners participate, but you can easily justify the invitee system regardless of that.
|
|
|
On December 11 2010 21:02 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 20:48 Cep wrote:On December 11 2010 20:36 Talin wrote:
The foreigner designated spots are there to ensure that Code A tournament has higher quality of players, not only to keep the foreign community happy and interested. The way things are right now, top 4 non-Koreans are easily good enough for Code A and probably better than the average Korean Code A player. There's nothing wrong in giving the foreigners a fair chance to retain that status rather than forcing them to move to Korea and then having them go through a ridiculous qualifier gauntlet that knocks out Tester regularly. So where's the point in having 4 guarenteed spots if they're better players anyway? Foreign teams take a risk moving their players to korea. Not only financially. As i already said, imo, maps aren't that balanced and invite for cheesy all-ins. So everyone could end up like Tester/Nada/... But having 4 guarenteed spots, sounds quite political to me. It is political, if it wasn't they'd just be qualifying the legitimate way, if they deserve it they will make it. I also think people saying that the top foreigners could easily qualify for code A need to take a step back and look at results. Some foreigners qualified for GSL, many did not. I would hardly say they would easily qualify for code A when some struggled to even get to the ro64 in these early GSL tourneys. To me it's pretty obvious they did this so that the people who moved to korea in hopes of making CODE S that failed miserably to do so, will still have a semi easier route to try and get in there. And as much as people want to see foreign representation, I personally would rather see a tournament run fairly where every player is held to the same standards. Not "koreans are held to this standard and a few foreigners have spots reserved for them".
The problem is that koreans and foreigners don't start on equal grounds. Koreans who want to participate in GSL just have to sign up, there's no financial/social decisions that have to be made.
While a foreigner would have to first of all decide that they are willing to spend atleast 2-3 months in Korea and then either A, convince his team to pay for travel/housing/food or B, pay for it all himself.
Those are some pretty heavy decisions to make, especially when you have to get through offline qualifiers, a full A-class ''season'' where you place high enough to enter the S-class qualifiers and then you have to get through that, just to get into the S-class where you can finally start winning some money.
Just look at Jinro, he failed to qualify for the first two GSLs before finally getting over that hump and the reason he was able to that was because he has a great sponsor who's willing to spend money on him even though he was having a rough time.
Now, maybe I'm underestimating the other foreign teams and sponsors, but it doesn't feel like there are that many teams that can actually have players in Korea for a long enough time to give them time to succeed. But what these 4 foreigner slots do is that they lower the risk for foreigners and their teams since you're essentially cutting the required qualifications to reach S-class by ~1/3, which is a pretty huge number. Especially when you consider the state of SC2 right now, it's still a new game and new rushes and all-ins pop up every other day, which it makes qualifiers even more of a lottery.
|
On December 11 2010 21:06 syllogism wrote:
It's like you've never seen a tournament besides GSL. Do you realize almost all foreigner tournaments have seeds and certain players get invited? Do you realize GSL invites players based on success in another tournament, that is to say GSL 1-3? Please read the thread.
Having said that, yes it's obviously beneficial for them to have more foreigners participate, but you can easily justify the invitee system regardless of that.
Well you certainly can't make a new league, call it your top tier with the top notch players you have to offer, without getting a picture (GSL 1-3) of who your top players really are. And since all 3 tournaments were 'open' everybody was free to participate.
|
On December 11 2010 21:06 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 21:02 robertdinh wrote:On December 11 2010 20:48 Cep wrote:On December 11 2010 20:36 Talin wrote:
The foreigner designated spots are there to ensure that Code A tournament has higher quality of players, not only to keep the foreign community happy and interested. The way things are right now, top 4 non-Koreans are easily good enough for Code A and probably better than the average Korean Code A player. There's nothing wrong in giving the foreigners a fair chance to retain that status rather than forcing them to move to Korea and then having them go through a ridiculous qualifier gauntlet that knocks out Tester regularly. So where's the point in having 4 guarenteed spots if they're better players anyway? Foreign teams take a risk moving their players to korea. Not only financially. As i already said, imo, maps aren't that balanced and invite for cheesy all-ins. So everyone could end up like Tester/Nada/... But having 4 guarenteed spots, sounds quite political to me. It is political, if it wasn't they'd just be qualifying the legitimate way, if they deserve it they will make it. I also think people saying that the top foreigners could easily qualify for code A need to take a step back and look at results. Some foreigners qualified for GSL, many did not. I would hardly say they would easily qualify for code A when some struggled to even get to the ro64 in these early GSL tourneys. To me it's pretty obvious they did this so that the people who moved to korea in hopes of making CODE S that failed miserably to do so, will still have a semi easier route to try and get in there. And as much as people want to see foreign representation, I personally would rather see a tournament run fairly where every player is held to the same standards. Not "koreans are held to this standard and a few foreigners have spots reserved for them". It's like you've never seen a tournament besides GSL. Do you realize almost all foreigner tournaments have seeds and certain players get invited? Do you realize GSL invites players based on success in another tournament, that is to say GSL 1-3? Please read the thread. Having said that, yes it's obviously beneficial for them to have more foreigners participate, but you can easily justify the invitee system regardless of that.
GSL invites players based on previous tournaments hosted by them, run with similar competition and similar formats.
The difference between the GSL and every foreign tournament is night and day.
Some of us that love competition in it's most pure form prefer the players to all be treated equally and for the best player to work his way through and prove himself.
As I said before some will be biased towards this system because they want to see foreign representation, but I don't want to see foreign representation unless they earn it the legitimate way like jinro and idra did.
|
A lot of thought went into the construction of this system and it shows. I cannot think of a better way to run a tournament of this caliber.
I continue to be impressed with the effort of the men and women behind the GSL tournament.
|
Robertdinh you fail to recognize your own bias. Regardless of what you think of the invitation system, the invited players will still have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet that is code A tournament to even qualify for the actual tournament.
|
On December 11 2010 21:34 syllogism wrote:
Robertdinh you fail to recognize your own bias. Regardless of what you think of the invitation system, the invited players will still have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet that is code A tournament to even qualify for the actual tournament.
Yet they won't have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet before that.
Thus they have had their route made easier.
I am only biased to what is fair.
Obviously reserved spots specifically for foreigners are not "fair" since foreign competitions don't have the same level of competition as korean tourneys like the GSL.
|
On December 11 2010 14:46 Brewers wrote:
Good News: 4 spots of Code A are guaranteed for top foreign players who has won recent big tourneys or shown considerable performances in non-Korean competitions.
That sounds more like bad news to me. It sacrifices value in the competetiveness and honesty of the tournament to greater entertainment. I don't like that at all, but maybe I have completely misunderstood GSL. I feel things like this should be left for purely international events like WCG, and I had seen GSL more like a korean EPS...
The other things sound good, even though it is unclear how unranked players are supposed to be able to enter the field. Is it through the offline qualifier with the lesser A-ranked players, or is there something different, or nothing at all?
|
On December 11 2010 21:36 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 21:34 syllogism wrote:
Robertdinh you fail to recognize your own bias. Regardless of what you think of the invitation system, the invited players will still have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet that is code A tournament to even qualify for the actual tournament. Yet they won't have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet before that. Thus they have had their route made easier. I am only biased to what is fair. Obviously reserved spots specifically for foreigners are not "fair" since foreign competitions don't have the same level of competition as korean tourneys like the GSL.
The same level of competition as code A qualifiers? They definitely do and besides that's just your subjective opinion. Qualifying for GSL doesn't actually require you to beat all that high level players, as has been repeatedly demonstrated by the level of some of the players who actually qualified to GSL 1-3 and comments made by foreigners who qualified.
|
On December 11 2010 21:45 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 21:36 robertdinh wrote:On December 11 2010 21:34 syllogism wrote:
Robertdinh you fail to recognize your own bias. Regardless of what you think of the invitation system, the invited players will still have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet that is code A tournament to even qualify for the actual tournament. Yet they won't have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet before that. Thus they have had their route made easier. I am only biased to what is fair. Obviously reserved spots specifically for foreigners are not "fair" since foreign competitions don't have the same level of competition as korean tourneys like the GSL. The same level of competition as code A qualifiers? They definitely do and besides that's just your subjective opinion.
No that's just reality, it is also my opinion, but please don't try to argue that the foreign tourneys can even begin to compare to GSL, cause that dog just aint gon' hunt.
|
On December 11 2010 21:46 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 21:45 syllogism wrote:On December 11 2010 21:36 robertdinh wrote:On December 11 2010 21:34 syllogism wrote:
Robertdinh you fail to recognize your own bias. Regardless of what you think of the invitation system, the invited players will still have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet that is code A tournament to even qualify for the actual tournament. Yet they won't have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet before that. Thus they have had their route made easier. I am only biased to what is fair. Obviously reserved spots specifically for foreigners are not "fair" since foreign competitions don't have the same level of competition as korean tourneys like the GSL. The same level of competition as code A qualifiers? They definitely do and besides that's just your subjective opinion. No that's just reality, it is also my opinion, but please don't try to argue that the foreign tourneys can even begin to compare to GSL, cause that dog just aint gon' hunt.
You appear to have some reading comprehension problems because GSL qualifiers do not equal the actual GSL, though I would even argue GSL isn't currently very high level at all. I'm confident every single foreigner who attempted to qualify for GSL will agree with me it's much more difficult to win an event such as MLG than to qualify for GSL.
|
On December 11 2010 21:48 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 21:46 robertdinh wrote:On December 11 2010 21:45 syllogism wrote:On December 11 2010 21:36 robertdinh wrote:On December 11 2010 21:34 syllogism wrote:
Robertdinh you fail to recognize your own bias. Regardless of what you think of the invitation system, the invited players will still have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet that is code A tournament to even qualify for the actual tournament. Yet they won't have to prove themselves by going through the gauntlet before that. Thus they have had their route made easier. I am only biased to what is fair. Obviously reserved spots specifically for foreigners are not "fair" since foreign competitions don't have the same level of competition as korean tourneys like the GSL. The same level of competition as code A qualifiers? They definitely do and besides that's just your subjective opinion. No that's just reality, it is also my opinion, but please don't try to argue that the foreign tourneys can even begin to compare to GSL, cause that dog just aint gon' hunt. You appear to have some reading comprehension problems because GSL qualifiers do not equal the actual GSL, though I would even argue GSL isn't currently very high level at all.
It's all part of GSL, even the qualifiers.
CODE S is 32 players, CODE A is 32 players, that's 64 players.
How many foreigners have qualified for RO64? How many got much deeper than that? I'd hardly say they have done enough to get a reserved spot in the top 64 spots of GSL.
Ask them to say that when they don't get extremely favorable brackets.
Select got 2nd place at an MLG, did he qualify? Nope...
Huk got 1st place at an MLG, did he qualify? Nope...
|
On December 11 2010 19:44 syllogism wrote:
The hilarious thing is that this happens all the time in foreigner tournaments as well and no one whines about that. Blizzard better not invite GSL winners to blizzcon but rather force them to go through qualifiers as well.
Blizzard's invitationals or Blizzcon are not serious competitions. They are basically show-matches, at least that's how I have felt about it from the beginning. Players don't enter those themselves and they are not held to find the best x number of players. Pure show, albeit with a bunch of fairly decent prize money.
I don't respect Blizzcon as a tournament. Only as a show, and that only if the games are good.
|
Confusing as sh*t, but I think I have a grasp on it. Will be very entertaining watching Tasteless try and explain it (Artosis will surely come to his rescue many times).
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49626 Posts
On December 11 2010 21:01 gnutz wrote:
graph would be nice. but system sounds interesting.
BO1 ??? WHAT?
its a BO1 round robin style,seriously watch OSL/MSL you'll have a good idea of how mainstream Korean run tournaments are.
|
This is all kinds of awesome!! Cant wait for next year. SC2-Korea and MLG is gonna be a blast. Cheers to GOM and Blizzard for showing how to run a huge Torney, fairly. Gogogo!
|
old OSL format, with promotions between leagues
should be fun
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
I'm kind of worried that in the fast changing world of a new scene the small number of new players and the length of time required to get to the top will exclude a lot of new blood - but we'll see.
|
Giving 4 spots in Code A to foreigners might seem unfair to Koreans who played in the GSLs and who would get those spots otherwise.
It also depends on if they actually invite some great players. How will they decide who's in the top 4?
|
On December 11 2010 22:38 revoN wrote:
Giving 4 spots in Code A to foreigners might seem unfair to Koreans who played in the GSLs and who would get those spots otherwise.
It also depends on if they actually invite some great players. How will they decide who's in the top 4?
As I said, koreans are free to fly to MLG and win it, maybe they'll get the spot that way. Just as fair as making foreigners fly to korea to qualify.
|
I absolutely love the system.
So much Sc2.
2011 will be the year of joy
|
At first I thought it was really complicated, but I guess it was just too early for me, it all makes sense now. Though I'm interested in how they determine 'top foreigners', or what counts as "big tourneys".
|
Hmm now that I think about it more. This could be quite huge if I may say so (the foreigner invitees part). We could see some sort of future collaboration between GSL and other major tourneys. Normally you'd have events running at the same time which conflicts the schedules but now they may be able to work together with the GSL being the important tournament. So this way maybe some sort of seedings can be arranged for the tournaments.
There are numerous ideas but this is a first nice step for future relationships between GSL and other tournaments. Makes me even more glad that GSL is really willing to help the global e-sports scene and not just the Korean scene.
|
On December 11 2010 17:20 KevinIX wrote:
How many GSL's will there be in 2011. Is it still monthly?
Will Code A tournaments be broadcast with english commentary?
good questions, could someone answer them :D ?
|
I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the implications of this new system; but offhand, the 4 guaranteed foreigner spots for Group A are amazing! I was worried that we'd see less foreigners in the GSL going forward, but hopefully we'll see even more!
|
On December 11 2010 23:40 locJ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 17:20 KevinIX wrote:
How many GSL's will there be in 2011. Is it still monthly?
Will Code A tournaments be broadcast with english commentary? good questions, could someone answer them :D ?
Here ya go. just use search next time  but I'll do you a favor this time and for everyone else.
1. GSL (Ran in January, March, April, July and September) - Main League. 32 Code S players tournament and 64 Code A players tournament.
2. World Championship (Ran in June and October) - 4 representative from each region in a 16 man tournament.
3. Ladder Tournament (Ran in February, May, August and November) - Tournament to decide best of Battle.Net ladder. Top 200 from each region are invited to participate in a preliminary for a 16 man double elimination tournament.
4. Blizzard Cup (Ran in December) - Top 8 (of GSL ranking I'm guessing?) will be invited to decide the best player of the year in a Bo5 Playoff format tournament.
This means there are going to be 12 Tournaments organised by the GSL in 2011. 17 if you include the A league too (but I include them with GSL league).
|
gotta love affirmative action eh
|
This seems like a great system imo. It sucks to have on of the best players being completely out of the system for an entire tournament due to an unlucky prelim...
|
The system makes sense. If you think that their purpose is to: 1) promote good players and 2) produce a lot of competition & tense moments. Also has the added benefit of constantly bringing new blood into the mix.
Most Americans probably aren't too familiar with the European Relegation system, so it might seem a little odd to most of us. If you've followed a European league much, you know that most of the best action, over the year, happens in the lower ranks trying to avoid relegation. Heck, some of the teams (Everton comes to mind) make it a big selling point they haven't been relegated in however many years. So, they've definitely lined up a lot of tense moments & drama to always happen. Should be fun.
The 4 Code A slots for foreigners will probably cause a lot of heat, and does smack a little of politics over skills, but it's also an admission of two things: 1) not everyone can make it to Korean to try out for Code A and 2) information isn't perfect. The GSLs had a lot of luck involved. They were seeded as much as you can for having little information about the players. The 4 Code A spots also practically acknowledge that this is all but Blizzard's official tournament system, and making it super hard for a non-Korean to get in isn't really wise for how much money they've put behind GomTV on this.
Besides, it's not like the previous two MLG champs are Code S qualified already... oh.
|
There could be only ONE national game in Korea, it is obviously the BroodWar for its very culture influence.
User was warned for this post
|
The future of Starcraft 2 torunaments and worldwide activity and arrival lots of now pro-players in the coming year is looking UTTER SWEET ! it's amazing the effort blizzard and gomtv + all the other tournament holders are putting in to this game !
|
So it looks like the tradition of making ridiculously confusing tournament structure (not really that confusing, but it's weird) has continued on with the GSL. I can't say that there's a better system though. You have to protect the good players and at the same time have the ability to infuse new players into the system.
All we need now is an awesome group ceremony. Would be interesting how an MSL-like group ceremony would be with foreigners. It'll probably be pretty awesome.
|
Just watched Primer a few hours ago so understanding this system is nothing in comparison :p Not that it's as complicated as some people are making it out to be anyways. It sounds great though and I'm looking forward to see what kind of SC2 action 2011 brings us :>
|
I like the part about the reserved foreigner spots It looks like a nice system to me, where noone is actually guaranteed a place if they stop playing well.
|
|
|
So win an MLG or similar ---> Code A.
Would be great if they provided transport and housing for the foreigners.
|
We don't need no special treatment!
|
All this 4 reserved spots bullshit sounds like affirmative action.
|
United States33129 Posts
they really need to change it so more than 8 spots are available to change in Code S every season.... honestly it's plain absurd to me -__-
|
I will make a flow chart or a powerpoint of this when i finish my exam in 4 hours. If someone doesn't beat me to it.
|
Sorry, because I'm new to this all, but whats this whole Code A, Code S stuff? I remember Artosis mentioning it when Jinro won the semifinals and it seemed like a big deal.
|
This is actually an awesome setup with the only downfall possibly being the group stage where we don't know for sure how many games will be played between 2 players. If it's best of 1 then it seems so highly dependent on maps and I don't think it would be too fair. I would suggest a best of 2 with a score system .. if 2 players take 1 game each it's a draw and if a player wins both it's a win. And scores should be given according to wins, draws etc. I think this will also decrease the number of ties within a group which itself will be pretty complicated.
Code S Group A
Fruitdealer
Foxer
Nestea
MC
2 players will move on to the next round where they will be grouped again with another 2 players while the bottom 2 will enter a fight to stay in Code S against the top 8 from Group A ( could even be picked out by the top 2 of Group A ).
It will get more complicated when each player wins against each other and have a 4 way tie in case of Bo1s.
And for foreigners to get 4 reserved spots is fair since it will give foreigners the opportunity to play in the GSL if they choose to. And even if not reserved, they can enter through the normal preliminaries to get a spot in the 12 Group A spots that are open to Koreans and foreigners alike.
For example .. winner of dreamhack Naama gets that spot and his clanmate MaNa comes along with him to Korea .. MaNa can still enter qualification rounds with the possibility of more than 4 foreigners getting a spot in code A and make their journey towards Code S.
And all games I suppose will be aired and publicized which will make the whole tournament of Code S and Code A very exciting to watch. Still I hope it's a Bo2 instead of a Bo1 in the group stages.
|
Germany1287 Posts
On December 12 2010 01:43 mousepad wrote:
Sorry, because I'm new to this all, but whats this whole Code A, Code S stuff? I remember Artosis mentioning it when Jinro won the semifinals and it seemed like a big deal.
1. Unfortunately, Jinro didn't win the semifinals.
2. Read the OP. Based on the results of the first three GSL tournaments, players are put into several leagues, also see here. Code S is the highest class / highest league with its own tournament, while the best Code A players from its seperate league will be able to have relegation matches against Code S players.
|
On December 12 2010 01:09 Waxangel wrote:
they really need to change it so more than 8 spots are available to change in Code S every season.... honestly it's plain absurd to me -__-
I don't follow soccer, but the most known relegation system I've heard of is the Premier league. They have 20 clubs (according to Wikipedia) and 3 are relegated each season, and seasons are long. Here there are 32 code S players and 8 possible relegations each month. Let's say that there's an average of 3 relegations a month. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
|
sounds like a good old european style sport league. With promotion and demotion, which is very good for competition.
I've never really liked American sports due to the fact that there is no penalty for being bottom of the table. In the UK the bottom 3-4 teams get relegated and the top 3-4 get promoted (obv not when ur in the top league lol). This system allows for more comptetition between teams and means that you don't watch the same 30 teams play year after year (see the NBA or NFL) and have essentially one or two teams dominate all the time as there are always new teams on their way up and down and there is more money for those in the top leagues so the new teams get more money and cna therefore perform better.
Can't wait for 2011 sounds like blizz and GOM have managed to put together quite a good run of tourneys!
|
I love every rule except perhaps the small number of players in code A. Still, should make for great competition.
On December 11 2010 14:46 Brewers wrote:
The Code S determination matches give the 3rd ranked players a bit of an advantage.
That is, 3rd ranked player vs Top 8 Code A takes place first. Then, whoever loses will play against 4th ranked player. The loser fails to stay in Code S and belongs to Code A for next season.
I particularly like this one because the advantage given to 3rd ranked Code S players is also extended to the top 8 Code A. They face double elimination, while the players who did worst in Code S (the 4th ranked), face single elimination. As it should be.
|
So question for you guys, how does a person who is not a Code A or Code S get to that level? do they have qualification tournies like before? or is it at this point only the invites for being a top foreigner and doing well in foreign tournies?
|
top4 of each ladder get code a
|
Canada2480 Posts
|
|
|
This system sound fantastic! I wish they would Bo3 for the group stage, I know Bo1 was how BW worked, but can't we make it better in starcraft 2? More games = more content and better idea of who is really the best.
|
looks pretty cool! do you think the system will discourage BW pros from switching over because they can't jump right into the top tier action?
|
i love it
However i am VERY skeptical of the 'bnet ladder' tourney (there is so many of them planned too ...)
|
Looks like someone had the same idea as me. puzzl's image is better, but here's my attempt, anyhow.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/C5rn0.png)
|
great picture above, seems correct to me
also 8/32 spot of code S at stakes every season is a whoping 25%, keep in mind its relatively a big proportion, code S is meant to provide a feling of relative security to compete at the top for holders
|
On December 11 2010 16:03 Defacer wrote:
So,
If Huk wanted to qualify he would have to get to the top of the Korean Ladder and take out a Code A player
OR
Win MLG again.
That sounds insanely hard.
If there's going to be a January GSL, wouldn't it make sense to use the 2010 foreign events? If this is true then Huk would have made S class by already winning MLG.
|
On December 12 2010 04:31 hidiliho wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 16:03 Defacer wrote:
So,
If Huk wanted to qualify he would have to get to the top of the Korean Ladder and take out a Code A player
OR
Win MLG again.
That sounds insanely hard. If there's going to be a January GSL, wouldn't it make sense to use the 2010 foreign events? If this is true then Huk would have made S class by already winning MLG.
If they used 2010 events, HuK would probably have a high chance of being a seed an A class, he won't be S class.
Also, it was never mentioned in the post that the Ladder competitions have anything to do with qualifying correct? As far as it is written, the bottom 16 Code A spots filled with offline qualifiers in the same way the other 3 open seasons have been.
|
|
|
On December 11 2010 15:02 Hurricane Sponge wrote:
It sounds like a system of Relegation which would be awesome. There isn't hardly any relegation in professional American sports, and it's always been a competitive mechanic I've envied of the Europeans.
That's because our franchise system works differently from European soccer, team relegation wouldn't really work in the nfl, nba or mlb as they currently exist.
|
I feel like the cycling between Code S and Code A should be much more volatile. There should be 16 Code S spots up for contention each season, not just 8.
It's better for viewers, too. Who wants one of their favorite players to become 'that guy who loses round robin 1-2 but not 0-3, so he stays in Code S'? I'd rather they drop to Code A and watch them crush their way back into Code S next season.
|
On December 11 2010 17:01 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 16:29 Chairman Ray wrote:
However nice it is that they're reserving spots for foreigners, I don't agree with the decision. I am a devoted fan of several foreign players, but if one of them got in solely because he was reserved a spot and not because he earned it himself, I will not cheer him on in the GSL. Have to say I agree.
The problem is that its impractical and potentially risky for foreigners to try and earn code A. To do so they would have to travel to Korea and live there while they go through offlines and GSL's to work up to code A/S; this gives quality foriegn players that couldn't afford to do all that traveling a reasonable shot at GSL.
Additionally with seemingly more Koreans starting to travel to foriegn tournaments the fields will likely be sufficiently strong to ensure that any qualifying foreigners aren't two notches below the GSL code A skill level.
The impoportant thing to understand here is that it gives forigner players who otherwise couldn't even attempt GSL qualifications (evne if they are good enough) a chance to get in the GSL.
|
offline preliminary
offline=LAN? or do you mean they meet up at one place just like this years GSL qualifiers
|
On December 12 2010 05:50 Versita wrote:offline=LAN? or do you mean they meet up at one place just like this years GSL qualifiers
Offline just means that it was like the qualifiers of this years GSL. Not that it is LAN as unfortunate as that is.
|
how much do we have to pay to watch these? seems like GSL preseason just got split up into two different tourneys. is it still a tourney with 64 except code S players play the winners of the code A players?
|
While I'm no fan of Bo1 matches, I like everything else about this format. It's a little complicated, but it looks fair (besides Bo1) and more interesting than straight single-elim tournaments. Hopefully Gom will reconsider their decision to use Bo1 matches.
+ Show Spoiler [Probably Pointless Speculation] +So, what foreigners do we think have the best chances of being given Code A spots? If we're going by major tournament winners, I would consider the following the most likely choices:
HuK (MLG Raleigh)
Fenix (IEM American Championships)
MorroW (IEM Cologne)
Namaa (DreamHack)
All other non-Korean winners of major tournaments (as classified by Liquipedia) already have Code A or S. However, I expect Gom to use a more holistic system.
Kiwikaki would be a good choice, seeing as he took 2nd at MLG Raleigh and 4th at MLG DC.
HuK also got 3rd at MLG DC, so that should improve his chances.
SeleCT got 7th at Raleigh and 2nd at DC.
Sjow and Socke also seem to be tearing stuff up in Europe, so maybe one of them?
I would expect to see at least one player of each race chosen. I also expect that nobody who actually played in the GSL will be chosen. So, my prediction are HuK, Kiwikaki, Fenix, and...Dimaga? It was hard to pick a Zerg, but I figured there was going to be at least one European player. On that same note, two Canadian players may seem too much, so perhaps it'll only be one of HuK and Kiwikaki. But I'm apparently a fanboy, so I'm keeping both of them there! Hopefully we'll know the real choices soon.
|
On December 12 2010 06:34 YoungNeil wrote:
While I'm no fan of Bo1 matches, I like everything else about this format. It's a little complicated, but it looks fair (besides Bo1) and more interesting than straight single-elim tournaments. Hopefully Gom will reconsider their decision to use Bo1 matches.
Are you sure you're not thinking of single elimination? That doesn't mean Bo1.
|
On December 12 2010 07:17 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 06:34 YoungNeil wrote:
While I'm no fan of Bo1 matches, I like everything else about this format. It's a little complicated, but it looks fair (besides Bo1) and more interesting than straight single-elim tournaments. Hopefully Gom will reconsider their decision to use Bo1 matches.
Are you sure you're not thinking of single elimination? That doesn't mean Bo1.
I know that there's a difference between single elimination and Bo1, but people in this thread have been saying that the group stages will use Bo1 matches. It's possible that this isn't true; I certainly hope so. I did forget to specify the group stages in my post, I'm sure that the single elimination stage will use Bo3/5/7, like the current GSL. I don't think Gom has specifically mentioned that, but they'd be crazy to do otherwise.
|
I don't think it's out of line to assume the group stages will be bo1. It's supposed to be a bo3, but against your whole group, rather than just against 1 person. Isn't that how group stages work at Dreamhack or in other star leagues?
|
wow 900 min for being code s? Thats awesome, a good gesture to show that they care about all progamers making an effort to be good at sc2.
|
Group stages should be round robin format, you play everyone in your group in a bo1 series and top 2 players who have the highest rating advance.
|
On December 12 2010 01:48 ZeNd0kUn wrote:
I would suggest a best of 2 with a score system .. if 2 players take 1 game each it's a draw and if a player wins both it's a win. And scores should be given according to wins, draws etc. I think this will also decrease the number of ties within a group which itself will be pretty complicated.
I really like that idea.
|
First of all: I Like this system!
Secondly: Questions: Can foreigners who are not in the group of 4 reserved spots still try to go through the offline preliminaries? Do they forfeit their spot in the group of 4 if they want to try and qualify? And how do they determine who gets a reserved spot among foreigners?
|
On December 11 2010 19:08 Trumpet wrote:
I'm a little disappointed now that it's happening. I really liked the big open tournaments.
I don't want to watch the same tournament month after month. And I liked knowing that every player in the ro64 had earned his spot by winning, not by invites.
Things like morrow winning the IEM tournament that he wasn't even originally invited to make me wary of all these codes and special qualifiers.
I guess we'll have lots of fan favorites at the very least. I'm also really hoping they change up the maps.
I'll be watching in any case, can't wait to see it when it actually airs =)
I don't know if you are getting it correctly... the tournament is still open. There is an offline preliminary to get into code A and between each tournament will be a decision match between top class vs lower class S to decide the participants in the next class S tournament. 8 players from Code S could lose they rank between each season, that's a lot (25%!). So, it wont be the same tournament over and over.
|
they certainly appear to have put a lot of thought into this system and I definitely agree with the result! this system is simply brilliant on all points (if they do BO3 in the group stages). this will make up for a ton of good SC2 to watch next yeah! O_O
I hope they get some english casts of the group A as well though, especially since most foreigners will probably start there.
|
On December 12 2010 08:20 CursedFeanor wrote:
they certainly appear to have put a lot of thought into this system and I definitely agree with the result! this system is simply brilliant on all points (if they do BO3 in the group stages). this will make up for a ton of good SC2 to watch next yeah! O_O
I hope they get some english casts of the group A as well though, especially since most foreigners will probably start there.
Yes, I think that they created (or took) the best system for this tournaments... but, as you, I hope group match are BO3 (i'm pretty confident on that).
|
Sounds like a fantastic system. I love the group play, since even if your favorite player loses once, he'll still be around for at least two more matches. Lotta pressure on the players, though, to stay in Code S/Code A. I'm really looking forward to it!
|
Good News: 4 spots of Code A are guaranteed for top foreign players who has won recent big tourneys or shown considerable performances in non-Korean competitions.
That means HuK :O?
|
United States1869 Posts
Don't 4 or so foreigners usually qualify for the Ro64 anyway? Out of 3 GSLs, we've seen Loner, Idra, TLO, Jinro, Haypro and a few others. Several of them multiple times.
Gonna be really silly if this backfires and the 4 reserved spots end up being the "watch Koreans slaughter these guys because the US/EU scene is drawn by the names" instead of legit competition. We still have legit competition from foreigners now so it seems kinda unnecessary.
|
Reserving 4 spots for foreigners is the minimum they could do to legitimately call themselves the "Global" starcraft league in my opinion. Think of the way that the olympics works, I mean China might have the 20 best table tennis players in the world but they have to have spots open for all countries to legitimately call it a global event.
Add to that the fact that the top European and North American competitions are easily just as highlevel as the GSL offline qualifiers, and are more than adequete for selecting a player of high enough quality to compete.
Having players have to fly out to the host country just to qualify is not something you can do and still call yourself an international tournament, whether or not the foreigners can compete or get roflstomped is actually irrelevant.
|
This isn't that complicated, not sure why people are so confused by it.
I also don't understand why people are complaining about 4 foreign players getting invites to Code A.
When you think about it, if a Korean wants to attempt to get Code A through a qualifier, all he has to do is waltz on over, sign up, and play in the qualifier. How about a foreigner? Foreigners have to take care of traveling and housing just for a chance to play in the QUALIFIER for Code A. It's quite the investment (Financially and otherwise) for a player to make just for a shot at qualifying (And only into Code A for the matter, they still have to go plenty further to get through Code A and the relegation matches to finally make it into Code S). Taking into account the investment and risk a foreigner has to take for them to go to Korea to try to compete, one might begin to worry abut the representation of Non-Korean countries in the GSL.
This system gives foreigners a bit more incentive to give the GSL a shot, along with allowing top players to qualify for Code A in their own countries at large tournaments like MLG and IEM just as Koreans get to qualify in their own country.
I'm mad excited for the GSL next year, we just need new maps now >___> I'm sure Blizzard is very aware of the need for those though, so I'm not too worried
|
Are they gonna broadcast Code A and Code S decision matches?
|
Is there any word on how often these tourneys will be held? Honestly, even though I'm all for a lot of eSports content, having these tournaments on a monthly basis feels like a bit much, especially if there are going to be Ladder tournaments, and two major international tournaments, and of course events like Dreamhack and WCG.
Also, for playrers who didn't compete in a GSL, or failed to achieve code A, have they announced how players go about achieving code A?
|
this is awesome. i wonder who the foreigners will be
|
Wow, this is awesome. GL to the four foreigners getting Code A spots!
|
Wow, really nice system. Given that theirs 2 stages of group play its really a system that should favor the better players.
|
Thanks for the write up foreigners hwaiting~
|
Are Tastless and Artosis commentating the Code A game as well? Im certainly hoping so. Also bravo on the 4 spots for foreigners. But will they invite people (living) outside of Korea to come? Like TLO or In.Control? Or will they be also be given to those living there? Like Huk and so forth?
|
Wait, so the 4 spots for foreigners are foreigners who are already in code A GSL, or just special invites to top foreigners currently outside of korea?
|
On December 12 2010 09:04 Wargizmo wrote:
Reserving 4 spots for foreigners is the minimum they could do to legitimately call themselves the "Global" starcraft league in my opinion. Think of the way that the olympics works, I mean China might have the 20 best table tennis players in the world but they have to have spots open for all countries to legitimately call it a global event.
Add to that the fact that the top European and North American competitions are easily just as highlevel as the GSL offline qualifiers, and are more than adequete for selecting a player of high enough quality to compete.
Having players have to fly out to the host country just to qualify is not something you can do and still call yourself an international tournament, whether or not the foreigners can compete or get roflstomped is actually irrelevant.
The Olympics is different though, since each participant is playing for his/her country. In GSL, it's pretty much every man for himself. WCG is probably closer to the Olympic format. Though you are right that it is harder for foreigners to participate, so 4 reserved spots will at least encourage more integration.
|
On December 12 2010 15:10 Ocedic wrote:
Wait, so the 4 spots for foreigners are foreigners who are already in code A GSL, or just special invites to top foreigners currently outside of korea?
Don't think we know yet. From what's been posted so far, it appears that the matches coming up this week will set the 32 Code A players for the January GSL. After that, I think the next GSL will be in March (I think?), so they'd probably have the Offlines in February & invite the 4 foreign players for March. At least, I think that sounds right?
|
Sounds interesting. If you're good and you hit code S, you have a good chance of staying code S, yet the 8 spots in danger still lets bad players get knocked out for better A class ones.
Can't wait to see how next year turns out!
|
Anyone who complains that 4 foreigner spots are unfair forgets that the normal qualification path is only in Korea.
If they wanted to make it completely fair, they would have to hold those (monthly?) qualification tournaments in every country. Something nobody has the infrastructure and funding for.
So instead of holding their own qualifiers abroad, they look at the existing foreign tournaments and take those as qualifiers.
I think it's win win. The high profile competitions in Europe and America get an additional boon, and the GSL get more international exposure. And the foreign players can take a less risky path, and with an invite in hand, they probably can attract sponsors to actually go to Korea.
|
I love how the GSL is making a commitment to being a GLOBAL league just as their name implies. I can't wait for an excellent year of SC2 in 2011.
|
On December 11 2010 16:48 No_Roo wrote:
Wait, reserved spots for foreigners? That's nonsense, we don't need a handicap, our guys are kicking ass in the GSL, I feel a little insulted that they think we need a hand out...
I think a lot of it has to do with 1) getting foreigners involved, 2) the cost of the trip, food, lodging, all with the possibility of not qualifying (with the old system)
|
So confusing, but hey, I get the part where players get to pick who they want to vs. I like that
|
I like the format so far, though the 4 foreigner spots I can`t say I agree with.
|
I'm sorry, how do you achieve code A in the first place? The offline qualifying tournament, I guess?
|
On December 12 2010 18:17 hemoptysis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2010 16:48 No_Roo wrote:
Wait, reserved spots for foreigners? That's nonsense, we don't need a handicap, our guys are kicking ass in the GSL, I feel a little insulted that they think we need a hand out...
I think a lot of it has to do with 1) getting foreigners involved, 2) the cost of the trip, food, lodging, all with the possibility of not qualifying (with the old system)
as far as i understood, winners of 4 major tournaments in non korea have a reserved spot, so if some Korean would have won Dreamhack or what ever a "major tournament" is the spot would have been his?
|
On December 12 2010 19:12 mango_destroyer wrote:
I like the format so far, though the 4 foreigner spots I can`t say I agree with. They're doing this not to belittle the skill of the foreign players. Only the top 16 of code A are safe in code A. The bottom 16 have to enter qualifiers just like the 3 GSLs we have seen. The difference will be that there will be only 16 spots for the main stage ( Code A tournament ) for grabs and it will be even more harder for newer foreigners to qualify. In the path to 64 you got only 5 foreigners so in a path to 16 ... you can understand the number of foreigners will decrease and the global starcraft league wont be that global. It's fair that it reserves 4 spots for the winners of foreign events if they choose to participate. This doesn't mean they will but it means they can. If they don't, those 4 reserved slots for the top foreigners become open together with the 12 slots for korean and foreigners alike thru the qualifications. And it's not like any foreigner that gets a slot reserved for the 16 new qualifications gets a free pass or anything. He has to win something like MLG or Dreamhack and that's not easy at all. And let's say those 4 spots were accepted by the designated foreigners, it doesn't mean no more foreigners are further allowed to qualify .. other foreigners still can compete for one of the remaining 12 spots in the code A tournament. For all we know, all those 12 slots can be foreigners if they beat out all the koreans who try to qualify as well.
I hope this explains a bit.
|
On December 12 2010 20:16 Heimatloser wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2010 18:17 hemoptysis wrote:On December 11 2010 16:48 No_Roo wrote:
Wait, reserved spots for foreigners? That's nonsense, we don't need a handicap, our guys are kicking ass in the GSL, I feel a little insulted that they think we need a hand out...
I think a lot of it has to do with 1) getting foreigners involved, 2) the cost of the trip, food, lodging, all with the possibility of not qualifying (with the old system) as far as i understood, winners of 4 major tournaments in non korea have a reserved spot, so if some Korean would have won Dreamhack or what ever a "major tournament" is the spot would have been his? No it's purely for foreign players and they want one of those spots reserved for a skillful foreign player so they try to track the winner of a major foreign tournament where it is unlikely Koreans will participate. oGsTop and oGsInca participating in Dreamhack isn't something we see all the time. They just happened to not qualify for GSL and 2 foreigners were busy to participate in Dreamhack that it happened. Genius and Loner in Blizzcon is a showmatch where players are invited by Blizzard and doesn't really account for a major foreign tournament.
And again note : 4 spots of 16 to enter a new round of Code A tournament are reserved for foreigners which doesn't mean they will accept it due to many reasons and if they do, it doesn't mean they limited the number of foreigners to just 4 ... the remaining 12 slots are up for grabs for foreigner and korean alike thru a qualification in Korea.
|
I'm so confused after reading that...........
|
On December 12 2010 21:31 FlamingTurd wrote:
I'm so confused after reading that...........
I second that!
|
Nice System, really horoughly thought through. I dont see players like nestea/fruitdealer not reach the RO8 because of some stupid all ins. The double group stage gives solid players an advantage. Also i like how code A and code S players have to fight for code S spots.
|
nice system.. but foreigners should not be handed positions in the tournament.. it should be best of the best.. not best of the best plus 4 foreigners
|
If you had basic reading comprehension capabilities you would know they are not being "handed out" positions. They've to win tournaments with tougher competition than your average code A qualifying bracket. Furthermore, if you looked at the structure or read the thread, you would realize qualifying for class A does not mean you are "best of the best" and it's going to get a few GSLs at least until tier B and C players are weeded out, due to variance.
|
Though it looks complex, it's actually a very well thought out system. I honestly can't think of any way to improve it. In this system, we'll frequently see the old gosus play without them getting knocked out in qualifiers due to the latest cheese, and we'll see new rising talent. Much better then in KESPA by far.
|
I like the "top four foreigner" rule.
It lets top players get into the tournament that didn't have a chance to spend 3 months in Korea trying to qualify for Code S/A.
|
Looks pretty solid to me. Also, giving foreigners guaranteed spots is amazing, I'm really loving this. Not surprised some people disagree with this, but it'll really help keeping the scene big world wide. Not only will this help SC2's longevity, but also keeping the Korean and non-Korean scenes from separating.
|
On December 12 2010 04:00 puzzl wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ev5Jc.jpg)
This is the best explanation of the system so far. I actually like the GSL system very much, and I think it's going to provide a lot of exciting starcraft. I especially like how the 3rd placed player in the group is given an advantage over the 4th placed player in the code-S determination matches.
The current system means at most 8 players will move up to Code S, which may be a little low for some ppl. For me, I would've preferred if 16 players were given the opportunity to move up. My preferred system would be to expand code-A to 64 players are then:
- 3rd place code-S vs top-8 code A -> Winner to code-S (1)
- Loser of (1) vs 4th place code-S vs top-16 code-A -> Winner to code-S
But this is no big deal for me, the current system is almost close to perfect.
Another thing that may happen is that the code-A tournament mirrors that of the code-S one. The players get split into 8 groups of 4 and play a round-robin. The top-2 then advances while the bottom 2 will lose the code-A.
I also like the 4 reserved foreigner spots. This is because it's very hard financially for a foreigner to come to korea to compete. I think it'll be a good idea if GOM announces which tournaments would give these reserved spots.
|
I really like that they're going to use a group system, because it's by far the most accurate way of determining the "best" player. It's generally a brute force thing, since a group system has by far the most games played of any format (single or double elim, swiss, etc). Regardless, it's good to see something other than straight up single elimination, where a great player can get eliminated early on by some cheesy player or a few games on tilt.
*cough*FruitDealer vs. HongUnPrime*cough*
Anyway, it looks like I'll be shelling out more cash for Gom premium service. Hopefully they'll allow me access to both the group stage matches and the final single-elim bracket, but you don't always get what you wish for.
|
On December 11 2010 15:19 avilo wrote:
No bo3 sounds pretty sucky. GL to players getting cheesed by nobodies.
There is no indication what BOx it will be, my guess is they want to show more games not less games, so they will most likely keep it BO3.
Also the foreigner spots are to bring more people to watch the English live stream, I am sure they liked the number jinro brought to them when he made it far, and they for sure see that even though were interested in the koreans as well we are more interested about foreigners, so to keep their .net site up and running with profit they are reserving spots.
|
Bo1 is probably the best and realistic choice. Reason is simply because there is only 1 studio as far as we know and that is the current GSL studio which is airing the GSL Open seasons.
GSL with so many tournaments wants to be on schedule and having more games means more airing time but also means longer tournament which could delay the schedule that they've planned for 2011.
People need to realise there is also an A league which means even more matches. A tournament with just single elimination of 64 players was already a total of 63 matches.
The GSL S league has 2 group stages and then a single elimination tournament. That in itself will take quite some time to finish. And then the GSL has to wrap the A league too. Bo3 in group stages would simply be too much as it already is.
Unless the A league is not going to be covered by the GSL which I doubt then Bo3 could be set in the group stage. Imagine Tastosis covering the A league and S league. They'd be doing it non stop 10+ hours every day. Too much workload which I hope they don't get for their health.
|
A tad complicated right now, but I'm sure people will get used to this format fairly easily. It's sort of a Champions League system with an added relegation system.
I also think 8 is a good number of spots up for grabs for A-class players... It should not only be tough to remain in S-class but also tough to move up; something like 16 spots available could make it too heavily relegated.
Only downside to this system is that it's going to be hella tough to see someone coming out of nowhere to triumph (i.e. Royal Road) on first try: Offline qualifiers, plus A-class tourney, plus relegation series, plus S-class tourney.... you know who the up and comers are after going through such a grueling process.
|
On December 13 2010 03:37 shannn wrote:
Bo1 is probably the best and realistic choice. Reason is simply because there is only 1 studio as far as we know and that is the current GSL studio which is airing the GSL Open seasons.
GSL with so many tournaments wants to be on schedule and having more games means more airing time but also means longer tournament which could delay the schedule that they've planned for 2011.
People need to realise there is also an A league which means even more matches. A tournament with just single elimination of 64 players was already a total of 63 matches.
The GSL S league has 2 group stages and then a single elimination tournament. That in itself will take quite some time to finish. And then the GSL has to wrap the A league too. Bo3 in group stages would simply be too much as it already is.
Unless the A league is not going to be covered by the GSL which I doubt then Bo3 could be set in the group stage. Imagine Tastosis covering the A league and S league. They'd be doing it non stop 10+ hours every day. Too much workload which I hope they don't get for their health.
Anything BO1 is a bad idea. I don't care what the implication is.
There aren't 12 seasons of S and A league, though, so it shouldn't be THAT much of a workload. At least it won't be like GSL 1-3 RO64 every day.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 13 2010 03:37 shannn wrote:
Bo1 is probably the best and realistic choice. Reason is simply because there is only 1 studio as far as we know and that is the current GSL studio which is airing the GSL Open seasons.
GSL with so many tournaments wants to be on schedule and having more games means more airing time but also means longer tournament which could delay the schedule that they've planned for 2011.
People need to realise there is also an A league which means even more matches. A tournament with just single elimination of 64 players was already a total of 63 matches.
The GSL S league has 2 group stages and then a single elimination tournament. That in itself will take quite some time to finish. And then the GSL has to wrap the A league too. Bo3 in group stages would simply be too much as it already is.
Unless the A league is not going to be covered by the GSL which I doubt then Bo3 could be set in the group stage. Imagine Tastosis covering the A league and S league. They'd be doing it non stop 10+ hours every day. Too much workload which I hope they don't get for their health.
I'm sorry to disagree with you but BO1 is never the better option. GSL is the premier league in the Starcraft 2 scene; relying on best of 1 games is the worst possible choice to ensure the best players advance. Yes, there are time considerations, yes they want everything to run on schedule - but yes you are the number 1 tournament for sc2 in the world which maintains a $87k per month winners prize and is sponsored by sony ericsson and includes Blizzard involvement. BO3 - Make It Happen!
Starcraft 2 is currently at the point in time where any player can take any game off anyone at any point in time. The game is to young to have established personalities within the scene that will guarantee that a BO1 won't result in some scrub advancing. As much as anyone might like Action Jesus - 6 pooling your way through one of the biggest European tournaments is pretty lame.
Just my thoughts.
|
On December 12 2010 00:00 Rah wrote:
gotta love affirmative action eh
this is nothing like affirmative action. why aren't these posts getting warned? i've seen a few "affirmative action" jokes on this site, and it's really obnoxious....besides bad attempts at being funny, it doesn't even make sense from a logical standpoint. they have spots reserved for the top performers from "foreigner tournaments", whether this means you can't be Korean or not has yet to be seen, and even if it DOES mean that, so what? you STILL have to EARN an invite by WINNING. they are trying to live up to their name, GLOBAL star league!
+ Show Spoiler +(rant full on mode)
as a black person who loves starcraft 2, these kinds of things urk me so much. whether it's InControl throwing a "what's up my nigga" to IdrA on the sotg podcast, (not that bad i still like the podcast and incontrol) or Psystarcraft casting a livegame and saying "you silly little negro" then trying to say he said knee growth, to people saying "oh they put Tosh in the game because of affirmative action herp derp"....just be mindful that people of ALL backgrounds read team liquid and listen to the podcasts and pay to watch GSL and i'm not trying to say you cant make jokes, and they don't necessarily hurt me i experience worse IRL but just have some tact sometimes. As someone fairly new to rts gaming it gives an essence of "exclusion" which is just not cool. even writing these posts are exhausting because they tend on becoming a gang-raping of "oh ur sensitive its the internet, its not a big deal you have a sense of entitlement thats undeserved" etc etc, well guess what if someone doesn't say something then it just continues. that is how things like affirmative action came about in the first place
and just to be clear, "affirmative action" in this context would be something like this:
"in the past GSL qualifiers were open, but only available to male contestants. to remedy this oppression there are three slots reserved for female players, based on exceptional ladder ranking or tournament wins"
...this is nothing like that. whether AA is something you disagree with fine, but be mindful especially if you have never been discriminated against over something you cannot control.
other than that peace, can't wait to spend another 20 bucks every month on GSL, so fun to root for my favs and watch!
|
On December 11 2010 16:03 Defacer wrote:
So,
If Huk wanted to qualify he would have to get to the top of the Korean Ladder and take out a Code A player
OR
Win MLG again.
That sounds insanely hard.
Didn't Huk get into the top 4 last MLG? He's still the highest ranked player on the MLG elo as far as I know. I think Huk is safe for a foreigner spot at this point. I'm guessing they will try to actually fill those foreigner spots, so it's more an issue of "who are the top 4 foreign players in Korea at the time needed" than "Who are the best 4 players in the world outside of Korea, only THEY may compete!"
If they're in Korea they take priority, but if they are not, then the next best player who is in Korea would get the slot I would guess. So having a great world ranking would up your chances of having a shot at the Foreigner slots, but, for example, Torch could probably get into one of those slots if TL, EG, root, or digitas doesn't send a new bumper crop of top tier players to get in front of him in line.
|
On December 13 2010 06:21 ChThoniC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 03:37 shannn wrote:
Bo1 is probably the best and realistic choice. Reason is simply because there is only 1 studio as far as we know and that is the current GSL studio which is airing the GSL Open seasons.
GSL with so many tournaments wants to be on schedule and having more games means more airing time but also means longer tournament which could delay the schedule that they've planned for 2011.
People need to realise there is also an A league which means even more matches. A tournament with just single elimination of 64 players was already a total of 63 matches.
The GSL S league has 2 group stages and then a single elimination tournament. That in itself will take quite some time to finish. And then the GSL has to wrap the A league too. Bo3 in group stages would simply be too much as it already is.
Unless the A league is not going to be covered by the GSL which I doubt then Bo3 could be set in the group stage. Imagine Tastosis covering the A league and S league. They'd be doing it non stop 10+ hours every day. Too much workload which I hope they don't get for their health. Anything BO1 is a bad idea. I don't care what the implication is. There aren't 12 seasons of S and A league, though, so it shouldn't be THAT much of a workload. At least it won't be like GSL 1-3 RO64 every day.
No there aren't 12 seasons of S and A league but there is a major tournament each month which comes down to 12 tournaments which is similar to the GSL Opens we have now. If you count the A league that's 17 tournaments in just 1 year. Now tell me if you want the players play more games ? They're running on a tight schedule and you cannot expect players and staff to work over 10 hours a day every work day + some weekends (finals probably) for the whole year.
And this seems to be the old OSL format which I don't know much about. But the bo1 group stage is still in effect nowadays in the OSL. If it's been like that for years so it should be sufficient as this format has already proven for BW which is not the same game yes but the format worked which is why I don't see a problem with using it in this new game.
On December 13 2010 07:06 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 03:37 shannn wrote:
Bo1 is probably the best and realistic choice. Reason is simply because there is only 1 studio as far as we know and that is the current GSL studio which is airing the GSL Open seasons.
GSL with so many tournaments wants to be on schedule and having more games means more airing time but also means longer tournament which could delay the schedule that they've planned for 2011.
People need to realise there is also an A league which means even more matches. A tournament with just single elimination of 64 players was already a total of 63 matches.
The GSL S league has 2 group stages and then a single elimination tournament. That in itself will take quite some time to finish. And then the GSL has to wrap the A league too. Bo3 in group stages would simply be too much as it already is.
Unless the A league is not going to be covered by the GSL which I doubt then Bo3 could be set in the group stage. Imagine Tastosis covering the A league and S league. They'd be doing it non stop 10+ hours every day. Too much workload which I hope they don't get for their health. I'm sorry to disagree with you but BO1 is never the better option. GSL is the premier league in the Starcraft 2 scene; relying on best of 1 games is the worst possible choice to ensure the best players advance. Yes, there are time considerations, yes they want everything to run on schedule - but yes you are the number 1 tournament for sc2 in the world which maintains a $87k per month winners prize and is sponsored by sony ericsson and includes Blizzard involvement. BO3 - Make It Happen! Starcraft 2 is currently at the point in time where any player can take any game off anyone at any point in time. The game is to young to have established personalities within the scene that will guarantee that a BO1 won't result in some scrub advancing. As much as anyone might like Action Jesus - 6 pooling your way through one of the biggest European tournaments is pretty lame. Just my thoughts.
How is Bo1 never the better option ? I admit that it isn't the best format for any tournament but with many major tournaments next year (12) coming up then Bo3 is not going to help at all with the schedule. Bo1 is just the right option for the group stages. It's not like we're going to see bo1 through the finals.
As I said above if this format was taken over of the old OSL format then it should be sufficient as it has proven already over the years. The base BW has layed down is the only thing you could use as a start and adjust over the months/years if needed. If you cheese in the groupstage and the groupstage after that you're still going to play a Bo3/Bo5/Bo7 in the single elimination afterwards.
There will be cases of players who'll cheese their way into the next groupstage (like ActionJesus did on DreamHack).
If cheesing was the best strategy then we'd see every progamer cheesing in a Bo1. If there is something like the scv/marine all-in which is hard if not impossible to stop then it should be fixed.
Sc2 is still new and you are right that any player could take any game of anyone. But isn't that more exciting? If let's say Fruitdealer or NesTea lost a bo1 due to cheese or just a regular game in the group stage then they have to win their next 2 games. You can bet they're going to do everything they can to win those games which means every game counts even more important than in a Bo3.
Sc2 is new so we don't know who the best players are. What we do know is which players are consistent or just flavour of the month. These past 3 GSL Open has proven that now.
With a single elimination bracket and group stages we're going to see who truly are the better players of the qualified S code players and with the passing of several tournaments then you'd be able to decide who truly is the best player of the scene. No player has established anything in sc2 because like you said it's new. We only have fan favourites. If they truly are the best then they should win regardless if the game is new and strategies are constantly evolving.
TL;DR
It takes time for people to get established in the scene. The game is new so you won't have any player that will stand out of the rest else he'd have won every tournament there is.
Bo1 for the groupstages will make it more exciting and more important. Players will have to make sure they do their very best to win each game.
It won't be like oh it's that map so I'll just do some stupid all-in in a BoX. Bo1 ensures players to use their strategies cautiously on every map. Cheesing is a big risk and with 87k (maybe more in future gsl?) then the pressure is going to increase and cheesing might even be harder to pull off. I would applaud anyone who'd have the nerves to cheese in their last deciding game if they would stay in the tournament or not.
|
On December 13 2010 07:06 bkrow wrote:
I'm sorry to disagree with you but BO1 is never the better option. GSL is the premier league in the Starcraft 2 scene; relying on best of 1 games is the worst possible choice to ensure the best players advance. Yes, there are time considerations, yes they want everything to run on schedule - but yes you are the number 1 tournament for sc2 in the world which maintains a $87k per month winners prize and is sponsored by sony ericsson and includes Blizzard involvement. BO3 - Make It Happen!
Which set will be best of 1? Certainly not the tournament. CodeA group stages? CodeS group stages? They're group stages. Best of 1 doesn't allow scrubs to advance, it's just frustrating because it allows favorate players to be knocked out on bad luck. You still need to win more games then 7 other players. So you might lose a stupid game, but that doesn't knock you out of it either, the most consistent player, and therefore the best, should have the most wins, because he plays 7 games irrelevant of weather he loses his first game or stomps his first game. He just doesn't get to play the same guy more than once unless they both advance to the next stage. Group stages of 8 players is pretty big.
|
sounds like quite a confusing system, im sure it will be easier to understand once it actually gets put into motion. but thanks for the write up explaining it.
|
Hmmm, another question. You get kicked out of Code A through losing to the invite slot players from the top of the ladder and other Korean tournies? A code S player can't get kicked out of GSL all in 1 season, can they? They must lose their Code S one season, then lose their Code A the next?
|
On December 13 2010 07:52 SwiftSpear wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2010 07:06 bkrow wrote:
I'm sorry to disagree with you but BO1 is never the better option. GSL is the premier league in the Starcraft 2 scene; relying on best of 1 games is the worst possible choice to ensure the best players advance. Yes, there are time considerations, yes they want everything to run on schedule - but yes you are the number 1 tournament for sc2 in the world which maintains a $87k per month winners prize and is sponsored by sony ericsson and includes Blizzard involvement. BO3 - Make It Happen! Which set will be best of 1? Certainly not the tournament. CodeA group stages? CodeS group stages? They're group stages. Best of 1 doesn't allow scrubs to advance, it's just frustrating because it allows favorate players to be knocked out on bad luck. You still need to win more games then 7 other players. So you might lose a stupid game, but that doesn't knock you out of it either, the most consistent player, and therefore the best, should have the most wins, because he plays 7 games irrelevant of weather he loses his first game or stomps his first game. He just doesn't get to play the same guy more than once unless they both advance to the next stage. Group stages of 8 players is pretty big.
It's groups of 4 with 2 group stages. This would eliminate a bad player more likely and reward a consistent player.
|
Looks very nice to me!
The rotation between Code A and Code S won't be that low actually, each top8 Code A player will have two chances to win Code S, first playing against 3rd Code S from the group, then against 4th Code S. It means, that probably 5-6 Code A players will advance to Code S each season! That's already nice ciculation.
As to foreigners. I think it is great idea, that they provide those spots. I think international tournaments have really good level of competition and it's clear that top international progamers can compete with succes with Koreans in GSL. Plus it's just so much entertaining to see them there! That's actually one of main reasons why I eager to watch GSL!
|
Im so lost reading all that. I need pictures for comprehension please =(
|
Glad we can finally stop with all the speculation and misinformation that's been thrown around recently.
I would've liked to see a 64 player Code A tournament and 16 Code S spots up for grabs in order to give more players the opportunity to participate. The system is rather confusing at first read, but once you understand the "up and down" matches, it seems pretty fair and makes getting 3rd place in your group rather than 4th very important as it means 1 less chance at retaining Code S.
The 4 spots for foreign players is rather awkward. It's a nice idea as it guarantees a good amount of foreign involvement in GSL, but how they decide on which 4 players will get those spots may cause some debate. It may become a bigger issue as more foreigners go to Korea and whether they deserve those spots over players who do well in foreign tournaments. It would be best if they established some kind of system, such as inviting the winners of the top tournaments that occur before GSL (MLG, IEM, Dreamhack, etc.), and filling the rest with the top foreigners on the KR ladder. This way, players know exactly what they have to do to earn one of these spots. Of course, then you get into what is considered to be the top tournaments and whether ladder is a good representation of skill.
On the other hand, it may encourage players who might not consider going to Korea an opportunity to go and play there. I imagine it's tough to want to go to Korea to prove yourself, but have to rely so much on the preliminaries, which can be a crap shoot, to actually participate in the tournament. But, if you have an invitation to immediately enter the tournament, who wouldn't jump at that opportunity?
I think it might be best to just leave it to the open qualifiers and trust that foreigners are skilled enough to make it through the preliminaries. I think they could find other ways to encourage foreign participation.
|
Very intelligent and very good relegation system. I am impressed.
Someone has put a lot of thought into this which makes me believe we will see very professionally run sc2 tournaments in the future.
|
|
|
On December 13 2010 01:16 Azzur wrote:
This is the best explanation of the system so far. I actually like the GSL system very much, and I think it's going to provide a lot of exciting starcraft. I especially like how the 3rd placed player in the group is given an advantage over the 4th placed player in the code-S determination matches.
The current system means at most 8 players will move up to Code S, which may be a little low for some ppl. For me, I would've preferred if 16 players were given the opportunity to move up. My preferred system would be to expand code-A to 64 players are then:
- 3rd place code-S vs top-8 code A -> Winner to code-S (1)
- Loser of (1) vs 4th place code-S vs top-16 code-A -> Winner to code-S
But this is no big deal for me, the current system is almost close to perfect.
Another thing that may happen is that the code-A tournament mirrors that of the code-S one. The players get split into 8 groups of 4 and play a round-robin. The top-2 then advances while the bottom 2 will lose the code-A.
I also like the 4 reserved foreigner spots. This is because it's very hard financially for a foreigner to come to korea to compete. I think it'll be a good idea if GOM announces which tournaments would give these reserved spots.
Pending success of the first several tournaments using this system, almost certainly a system will be put in place to expand things to a wider group.
Especially as competition in other Korean companies rise to the occasion. Gom will have more incentive to cast out a bigger pool of "claimed" players.
|
This post would benefit from a graphical representation greatly.
|
This sounds great, looks a lot like the way tournaments are held in sports in Europe. Even though it sounds a bit complicated, I'm sure that in a couple of months we're all very familiar with this system. This is great news for Starcraft!
|
A graphical representation exists at the bottom of page 8 and top of page 9 (unless its a different post you are discussing, in which case sorry)
I think the system looks well though out. The foreigner thing, as long as it is handled well, could do great things to get more foreigners watching and hence up the revenue and thus the games potential longevity.
It only becomes an issue if the foreigners invited are defeated easily all the time, which I do not see happening tbh.
|
So, is there a list of S-class players yet?
|
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.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES49626 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:
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
|
Source: GomTV
Top 8 players who are seeded for Code S has selected their groups:
+ Show Spoiler +IMNesTea ----------------- (Group A)
FruitDealer ---------------- (Group B)
HongUnPrime.WE ------ (Group C)
TSL_Rain ------------------ (Group D)
ST_Rainbow -------------- (Group E)
oGsMC --------------------- (Group F)
MarineKingPrime.WE - (Group G)
oGsEnsnare -------------- (Group H)
Players from rank 9~16 have drawed their group:
+ Show Spoiler +MakaPrime.WE -- (Group A)
oGsZenio ----------- (Group B)
SlayerSBoxeR ---- (Group C)
KyrixZenith -------- (Group D)
NSPGenius -------- (Group E)
oGsInca ------------- (Group F)
NEXLiveForever - (Group G)
LiquidJinro ---------- (Group H)
Edit: ok they posted a table over at: GomTV
|
Look at the sc2 tourneys links.
Link
Everything is updated there too.
Schedule of A league is 18:00 KST (GMT +9) and S league is at 20:00 KST (GMT +9).
Seems they want everything in prime time to have as many viewers as possible which seems understandable but very tight in schedule.
|
On December 14 2010 18:36 Echuu wrote:Source: GomTVTop 8 players who are seeded for Code S has selected their groups:
(Bold added).
How does that work? Do the top 8 get some level of control over who's in their group? That's kind of cool.
ETA: Idra and Jinro are in the same group?! How lame.
|
On December 14 2010 20:20 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2010 18:36 Echuu wrote:Source: GomTVTop 8 players who are seeded for Code S has selected their groups: (Bold added). How does that work? Do the top 8 get some level of control over who's in their group? That's kind of cool. ETA: Idra and Jinro are in the same group?! How lame.
Seeded 1-8 each draw a group from A to H.
After that the same thing goes with 8-16 also from A to H.
Then 17-32 will draw in which some cases people can get same group in a row making it a full group which has happened.
Completely random draws by the players which some people think it's based which has been proven it isn't now.
|
sSKS and Cliiiiiiiiiiiiiiide! :D
Their games are the best. I hope they stay in code S for a while. Or if they drop to code A there will be some great pwnage too.
|
whats the format of the code A tournament?
|
On December 15 2010 00:06 fainez wrote:
whats the format of the code A tournament?
There are no info about that yet. So no one really knows except GOM themselves.
|
That field is so stacked!
oGsMC, oGsInca and oGsNaDa in the same group will be interesting.
|
This is a good idea, lets just hope that they will decide to stream this in English. I think the best timing for this tournament would be during the week between the semi finals and finals.
|
On December 15 2010 06:31 Liquid_Adun wrote:
This is a good idea, lets just hope that they will decide to stream this in English. I think the best timing for this tournament would be during the week between the semi finals and finals.
This does not make sense to me.
Stream what during semi finals and finals ?
|
I really like groups, gives people multiple games to prove (or disprove) their worth.
Anyone can loose a Bo3 based on a certain matchup, or certain strat that blindsides them - but if you loose in a group of 4, you have come out worst over multiple bo3's and so have less strength to argue it is unfair.
|
|
|
On December 12 2010 04:00 puzzl wrote:
Thanks for this.
This format seems pretty cool.
|
LOL I'M SO FUCKING CONFUSED...and high
|
All confusion aside this format guarantees us a lot of games, and high stakes for each one. Code S is going to be brutally competitive. Especially after we get a good idea of who is going to be able to maintain their status.
|
On December 16 2010 07:58 Aquafresh wrote:
All confusion aside this format guarantees us a lot of games, and high stakes for each one. Code S is going to be brutally competitive. Especially after we get a good idea of who is going to be able to maintain their status.
yeah indeed...
and it's actually not that confusing at all and in theory a pretty smart way to grant competitive games. personally i'm pretty curious to see the system and the players in action...
i'm just a lil bit surprised about the advancing to S. i get that A-players can advance but is that the only way to get there? no more direct qualifications for S?
|
so....
whats the S and A stand for?
|
On December 17 2010 17:07 zTz wrote:
so....
whats the S and A stand for?
_S_uper and _A_verage
|
The winner of this Code S tournament will get approximately $50,000, while the last place of Code S is guaranteed $1,500. Total prize pool will be around $150,000
|
Thank you sooo much for the Puzzl's chutes and ladders. Helped me alot, picture says 1000 words and all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/vzS2E.png)
