Did they ever give an explanation for why they decided on having four groups, instead of the old 16 teams group that showed us every team against every other team?

Also what's with the last group having all Western teams.

misirlou

Portugal3242 Posts

February 24 2016 20:10 GMT

#23

On February 25 2016 05:06 Azarkon wrote:
Did they ever give an explanation for why they decided on having four groups, instead of the old 16 teams group that showed us every team against every other team?

Also what's with the last group having all Western teams.

gotta guarantee the west gets team killed and some eastern teams make it to the winner bracket.

/s

Personally, I'd rather have 2 8 team groups. But this isn't bad

emperorchampion

Canada9496 Posts

February 24 2016 20:14 GMT

#24

Not sure if they gave a reason, I suppose it's because a bo3 is seen as desirable vs bo2 or 2xbo1's. Not really feasible to have bo3s with large groups.

1 "extra" western team, group A has 3 eastern teams.

Azarkon

United States21060 Posts

February 24 2016 20:44 GMT

#25

The old way gave us a look at ALL the teams against ALL the teams. Now, with the way it's done, we won't even necessarily see specific teams play each other.

I don't enjoy the way it's going, especially when they put three top Western teams in one group. One of them now has to play from the bottom, where it's just a single game from being out of the tournament.

I also don't see how this helps the amount of people watching, as now people are just going to watch only the groups that matter to their teams.

TheEmulator

28095 Posts

February 24 2016 20:46 GMT

#26

On February 25 2016 04:52 HammerKick wrote:

Show nested quote +

Where are you?

Snowland, my profile says so!

(also known as Saskatchewan, Canada)

spudde123

4814 Posts

February 24 2016 21:11 GMT

#27

I also preferred the larger groups. Those were imo part of what made DAC / TI special as a competition compared to others. Also it feels sort of weird that you get bo3 groups but then 2 rounds in the playoffs are bo1. I understand that it's a scheduling thing and games they have only certain days booked at the big arena, but it's a bit silly to me. I wonder if it would be better to just have some games off stage so you could play bo3 all the way. There's also a case for having every team get on stage.

hfglgg

Germany5372 Posts

February 24 2016 21:30 GMT

#28

having games off stage is a no go for large live events.
if they do the off stage game after the event at the venue like DAC did, you fuck over everyone who went to the event but doesnt have the means to watch the game, i.e. no laptop or bad internet at the hotel. if they do the off stage games parallel they have to offer some ways to watch those games while at the event. while this would be possible, it required a designated area for a total of maybe 2-4 bo3.

but honestly, scheduling issues should be a thing of the past. they know long beforehand that they want to hold the major and can plan accordingly.

ShiaoPi

TAIWAN NUMBAH WAN5956 Posts

February 24 2016 22:01 GMT

#29

getting ready to totally mess up my sleep schedule now :D

Amarok

Australia2003 Posts

February 24 2016 23:00 GMT

#30

On February 24 2016 15:46 hfglgg wrote:
cant you just watch them ingame for free like every other valve event?

I prefer the videos personally. I like that I can keep them on my phone and watch them when I'm out and the analyst desk is usually worth watching between matches as well.