|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On May 07 2016 02:16 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 02:08 Moobutt wrote:On May 07 2016 02:01 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 01:56 Moobutt wrote:
Top 4 from last Major get invited, 2 more teams are invited based on non-major performance. 10 qualifier slots allotted based on a region's dominance/relevance. So 3 Europe, 3 China, 2 America, 2 SEA. How do you propose measuring relevance/dominance? So, I'm totally spitballing... Top 4 previous major + 2 performance invites non-related to majors. 10 left Give every region an automatic 1 qualifier slot. 6 slots left. Then, look at previous major results for relevance/dominance. More I think about it, the less I'm sure it would work. Each region would need a different format for the different amount of Qualifier spots. It could work, but they'd need a system to decide how to count results for each region. As it is, they look at results from the last six months for their invite, which in my opinion is too large of a time, and it's why they had to invite this many teams.
They had to invite this many teams this time around to avoid fucking up both EU qualifiers and main event.
EHOME was a trade.
|
On May 07 2016 02:13 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 02:08 Moobutt wrote:On May 07 2016 02:01 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 01:56 Moobutt wrote:
Top 4 from last Major get invited, 2 more teams are invited based on non-major performance. 10 qualifier slots allotted based on a region's dominance/relevance. So 3 Europe, 3 China, 2 America, 2 SEA. How do you propose measuring relevance/dominance? So, I'm totally spitballing... Top 4 previous major + 2 performance invites non-related to majors. 10 left Give every region an automatic 1 qualifier slot. 6 slots left. Then, look at previous major results for relevance/dominance. More I think about it, the less I'm sure it would work. Each region would need a different format for the different amount of Qualifier spots. Once again, there is no precise version to measure relevance. The only viable one would be a wildcard, so something like top 4 + 2 performance + 2 qualifiers per region + 2 wildcards for 4 3rd places of qualifiers.
That sounds like the best system I've heard proposed. Only issue is ping concerns for the wildcards.
Valve could afford to fly out the teams for a LAN wild card. Round robin groups, double elim bracket.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On May 07 2016 02:17 FreakyDroid wrote:
Or they can simply add CIS as a separate region from Europe. There's is 0 sense that China and SEA are separate, but EU and CIS arent.
There kinda is, China and SEA do play at different servers and are different.
EU West is kinda hard to distinguish from Russian server however.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On May 07 2016 02:18 Moobutt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 02:13 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 02:08 Moobutt wrote:On May 07 2016 02:01 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 01:56 Moobutt wrote:
Top 4 from last Major get invited, 2 more teams are invited based on non-major performance. 10 qualifier slots allotted based on a region's dominance/relevance. So 3 Europe, 3 China, 2 America, 2 SEA. How do you propose measuring relevance/dominance? So, I'm totally spitballing... Top 4 previous major + 2 performance invites non-related to majors. 10 left Give every region an automatic 1 qualifier slot. 6 slots left. Then, look at previous major results for relevance/dominance. More I think about it, the less I'm sure it would work. Each region would need a different format for the different amount of Qualifier spots. Once again, there is no precise version to measure relevance. The only viable one would be a wildcard, so something like top 4 + 2 performance + 2 qualifiers per region + 2 wildcards for 4 3rd places of qualifiers. That sounds like the best system I've heard proposed. Only issue is ping concerns for the wildcards. Valve could afford to fly out the teams for a LAN wild card. Round robin groups, double elim bracket.
Well yeah, LAN wildcards obviously.
|
LOL nahaz is actually mad
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
Meanwhile Russian trolls are playing "Who wants to be a millionaire" lmao
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I'm mad that more people aren't mad about Slacks
|
On May 07 2016 02:04 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 02:03 hfglgg wrote:On May 07 2016 02:01 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 01:56 Moobutt wrote:
Top 4 from last Major get invited, 2 more teams are invited based on non-major performance. 10 qualifier slots allotted based on a region's dominance/relevance. So 3 Europe, 3 China, 2 America, 2 SEA. How do you propose measuring relevance/dominance? finishs on international lans How exactly, once again?
i'd do it like the uefa does it for their european competitions.
the better the teams of a certain region do in the competitions, the more teams will play internationally the next season.
quick example:
lets assume the wildcard matches are back for every major (because they have a purpose, i just wait for another ti2 debacle in that regard).
at ti5 SEA would only get 2 qualifier spots, but because they had decent results at ti5 and the upcoming tournaments for frankfurt they get 1 invite and 1 qualifier spot. europe for failing pretty bad loses one invite.
you can even do cool things with the direct qualification and wildcard matches for the qualifier.
i would like such a system, because it makes the whole invitation process much easier to understand.
|
On May 07 2016 02:20 TanGeng wrote:
I'm mad that more people aren't mad about Slacks
You can tell Nahaz doesn't appreciate the trolliness during serious discussion
|
I'd go crazy if I had to listen to Slacks more than 10 seconds
|
On May 07 2016 02:18 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 02:16 Azarkon wrote:On May 07 2016 02:08 Moobutt wrote:On May 07 2016 02:01 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 01:56 Moobutt wrote:
Top 4 from last Major get invited, 2 more teams are invited based on non-major performance. 10 qualifier slots allotted based on a region's dominance/relevance. So 3 Europe, 3 China, 2 America, 2 SEA. How do you propose measuring relevance/dominance? So, I'm totally spitballing... Top 4 previous major + 2 performance invites non-related to majors. 10 left Give every region an automatic 1 qualifier slot. 6 slots left. Then, look at previous major results for relevance/dominance. More I think about it, the less I'm sure it would work. Each region would need a different format for the different amount of Qualifier spots. It could work, but they'd need a system to decide how to count results for each region. As it is, they look at results from the last six months for their invite, which in my opinion is too large of a time, and it's why they had to invite this many teams. They had to invite this many teams this time around to avoid fucking up both EU qualifiers and main event. EHOME was a trade.
They didn't.
They could've done eight teams; we all thought they were going to do eight teams; and many of us already had an idea about the eight teams to invite.
|
On May 07 2016 02:23 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 02:18 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 02:16 Azarkon wrote:On May 07 2016 02:08 Moobutt wrote:On May 07 2016 02:01 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 01:56 Moobutt wrote:
Top 4 from last Major get invited, 2 more teams are invited based on non-major performance. 10 qualifier slots allotted based on a region's dominance/relevance. So 3 Europe, 3 China, 2 America, 2 SEA. How do you propose measuring relevance/dominance? So, I'm totally spitballing... Top 4 previous major + 2 performance invites non-related to majors. 10 left Give every region an automatic 1 qualifier slot. 6 slots left. Then, look at previous major results for relevance/dominance. More I think about it, the less I'm sure it would work. Each region would need a different format for the different amount of Qualifier spots. It could work, but they'd need a system to decide how to count results for each region. As it is, they look at results from the last six months for their invite, which in my opinion is too large of a time, and it's why they had to invite this many teams. They had to invite this many teams this time around to avoid fucking up both EU qualifiers and main event. EHOME was a trade. They didn't. They could've done eight teams; we all thought they were going to do eight teams; and many of us already had an idea about the eight teams to invite.
Secret, Liquid, EG, MVP seem obvious, the next 4 seem a little debatable.
|
On May 07 2016 02:19 Orome wrote:
LOL nahaz is actually mad
Wait what, I was getting dinner did I miss some juicy drama?
|
At the same time I wonder now much more attention smaller teams get because of the increased # of invites.
Like it's a bit of a shame for teams like Empire, AF, or ND where one of them could easily take Na'vi or Alliance's slot, but at the same time ND gets the Synderella story and on NA side you at least get some extended eyeballs on teams like Dragneel, FDL, Shazam, etc. that otherwise would may have bombed out "early" in a more competitive qualifier and just gone by unnoticed.
If they really wanted to though it'd be neat to have like 4 invite + a few teams from each region play in a small 2 or 4 team tournament where the losers get an added to main qualifiers and winners get a direct invite. So like you still pave the way for the qualifiers to showcase new/smaller teams, but you limit the direct invites a bit more.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On May 07 2016 02:23 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 02:18 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 02:16 Azarkon wrote:On May 07 2016 02:08 Moobutt wrote:On May 07 2016 02:01 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 01:56 Moobutt wrote:
Top 4 from last Major get invited, 2 more teams are invited based on non-major performance. 10 qualifier slots allotted based on a region's dominance/relevance. So 3 Europe, 3 China, 2 America, 2 SEA. How do you propose measuring relevance/dominance? So, I'm totally spitballing... Top 4 previous major + 2 performance invites non-related to majors. 10 left Give every region an automatic 1 qualifier slot. 6 slots left. Then, look at previous major results for relevance/dominance. More I think about it, the less I'm sure it would work. Each region would need a different format for the different amount of Qualifier spots. It could work, but they'd need a system to decide how to count results for each region. As it is, they look at results from the last six months for their invite, which in my opinion is too large of a time, and it's why they had to invite this many teams. They had to invite this many teams this time around to avoid fucking up both EU qualifiers and main event. EHOME was a trade. They didn't. They could've done eight teams; we all thought they were going to do eight teams; and many of us already had an idea about the eight teams to invite.
If they do eight teams, then they have to purposely:
1. Either Shit on Fnatic/complexity to avoid 4 SEA/4 NA teams at Manilla.
2. Or Put Alliance/OG/Navi into EU qualifier, and that means kicking Polarity (okay), PR (okay), one of VP/Vega/Empire/Spirit/Ad Finem/No Dig (TOTALLY NOT OKAY).
|
On May 07 2016 02:18 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 02:17 FreakyDroid wrote:
Or they can simply add CIS as a separate region from Europe. There's is 0 sense that China and SEA are separate, but EU and CIS arent. There kinda is, China and SEA do play at different servers and are different. EU West is kinda hard to distinguish from Russian server however.
Depends how you see it. For me, servers mean nothing. The only reason China is different from SEA isnt geographical or anything else, its the Chinese rules and how the country is governed. Thats the sole reason.
The overall quality of SEA teams is below EU or CIS yet they have their own qualifier. And that imho isnt right or fair.
|
Seriously... for me slacks is the personalization of a rubberband graph.. he built up his reputation for me being funny for a bit, then dipped down massively because of dumb comments and just a cringeworthy attitude.
then he climbed up again once more with this major brawl which was funny gotta give him that but with THIS right now the graph went totally downhill. Seriously this guy is just a somewhat douchebag who seems to be there just present his memes. I have to side with Nahaz on this one...
|
dont spirit suck i'm sure spirit suck
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On May 07 2016 02:29 FreakyDroid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 02:18 lolfail9001 wrote:On May 07 2016 02:17 FreakyDroid wrote:
Or they can simply add CIS as a separate region from Europe. There's is 0 sense that China and SEA are separate, but EU and CIS arent. There kinda is, China and SEA do play at different servers and are different. EU West is kinda hard to distinguish from Russian server however. Depends how you see it. For me, servers mean nothing. The only reason China is different from SEA isnt geographical or anything else, its the Chinese rules and how the country is governed. Thats the sole reason. The overall quality of SEA teams is below EU or CIS yet they have their own qualifier. And that imho isnt right or fair.
Servers do matter, for starters, even Korea->SEA ping is horrendous enough for MVP.P to play their online matches from Singapore. CIS usually does not have this problem with EU except Russia (starting from Ural) but that's mainly because Russia is too big for it's own good.
On May 07 2016 02:30 Sn0_Man wrote:
dont spirit suck i'm sure spirit suck
Spirit kind of suck, but not that hard to kick them from qualifier invites.
|
On May 07 2016 02:30 Sn0_Man wrote:
dont spirit suck i'm sure spirit suck
They took a game off of EG at WePlay I guess but idk how much that amounts to anymore
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
