|
Uhmmm ... 2 Divisions? This is not baseball or American Football ... this is SC. Sports are very often like this, every team plays every other team once or twice. Divisions make sense where there is some kind of territorial division or Regions or something ... this is not the case. This has to be one league. I think it's fine like this, if you are better, you can recover with a better score along the season beating other teams .... and beating the team who beat you in the first place as well.
"In the MBC Teamleague, the teams raced to three wins and the winner stayed. It was possible for a single player to wipe out an entire team in a night"
You must be kidding ... this is the opposite of what a team vs team spirit is ... why should one team lose the entiry match only because the other team has the best player? Unfair and ugly. Maybe once a season ... a fragbet style wouldn't hurt ... but no more.
Team melee? This might be nice.
Coaching? Would you like to be guided like a monkey in a televised game? I don't think they would, they are progamer ...
I agree on what you say on maps, the idea of using a classical pool in the mix is great and sounds perfect.
PS: Very nice article
|
On July 31 2007 01:06 IH4t3z3rg wrote:
Uhmmm ... 2 Divisions? This is not baseball or American Football ... this is SC. Sports are very often like this, every team plays every other team once or twice. Divisions make sense where there is some kind of territorial division or Regions or something ... this is not the case. This has to be one league. I think it's fine like this, if you are better, you can recover with a better score along the season beating other teams .... and beating the team who beat you in the first place as well.
"In the MBC Teamleague, the teams raced to three wins and the winner stayed. It was possible for a single player to wipe out an entire team in a night"
You must be kidding ... this is the opposite of what a team vs team spirit is ... why should one team lose the entiry match only because the other team has the best player? Unfair and ugly. Maybe once a season ... a fragbet style wouldn't hurt ... but no more.
Team melee? This might be nice.
Coaching? Would you like to be guided like a monkey in a televised game? I don't think they would, they are progamer ...
I agree on what you say on maps, the idea of using a classical pool in the mix is great and sounds perfect.
PS: Very nice article
The coaches do team melee in the allstars.
You make a good point, but still I dont get the idea of putting in a random motw.
They should use the OSL/MSL maps, and try to avoid any maps made by intothemap.
btw I know its kindof off topic but why do you cover your ass. We all have a right to our opinion dont we?
|
Very, very nice writeup. Any way we can get this translated and submitted to KeSPA or something? I'd really like to see some of these ideas adapted into the Pro League.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
Firstly, I know this is my first post and my whole post will probably be shot down for just that reason, but I have been a member for a few years now, and I've been following the pro-scene since the days of Boxer vs Yellow. Obviously, due to my crappy internet connection, I haven't been able to follow it all the time, but I do my best to stay up to date. This season was the first season I could actually follow the three main leagues! That said, I don't agree with all your ideas.
The first reason, and main reason, I don't agree with most of your ideas is that they aim to increase the entertainment of the proleague, but I believe that it's at the cost of some balance issues.
Your idea of splitting up the leagues... well, there's nothing wrong with it, but I also don't see the point of it. You say that if ACE loses to Samsung in the first week of play, and Samsung is leading the league, ACE only has one more head to head match vs Samsung to make up any ground. This is the basis of all big leagues, leagues are not about single team vs. team performances, but about sustained team performances. Take KTF this season. They beat Samsung twice yet it didn't make any difference. That said, it doesn't mean that individual matches, and rivalries, aren't important: They're just not as important as consistent performance.
The second consequence you mention is the lack of rivalries. As mentioned earlier, I agree that it's not as important as consistent team performace, but it is still there. Take the FA Premier League this year, 20 teams, double round robin format, exactly the same as the Proleague, just bigger. Yet that doesn't stop rivalries from developing, especially among the higher ranked teams. Arsenal vs Liverpool, Man U vs Chelsea. Yet every single match is important, sometimes for first position, sometimes for a top four position. Either way, it's always tense.
As to your idea of changing the play day format, there's only one 2v2. As you say, it's a team league, but starcraft is mostly an individual game. One 2v2 seems to me to be the perfect balance. Teams are put in the difficult situation of either creating a fixed 2v2 team, which focuses those players on teamplay (and possibly removes them from 1v1 leagues) or using makeshift 2v2 teams, but allowing more flexibility in your line-up. As to the placement of the 2v2 game, 3rd game seems perfect to me. This is clearly the most important spot for any game, and thus it increases the importance of the 2v2 match, making it more prominent than just 1 out of 5 games. Teams like Samsung have shown that.
The idea of winner stays on is a bit circumspect as it allows teams to, technically, win the league with one strong player. Even if, like you say, they only make use of that format once every 3 weeks, it is still bound to screw over someone. Say there's a very tight battle for first spot, and the first team plays against the second team, the first team fielding a strong balanced squad (eg. MBC) against the second team that has a slightly worse line-up, but one strong player (eg. CJ). Having the bad luck of drawing the winner stays on format for this match-up would clearly disadvantage the balanced squad. Even worse, a team like Samsung sits in fourth position (in this example). They have a very good chance of winning the league, but due to a bad start they've only barely made it in. In the last match, the match that they need to win to maintain fourth position, they draw someone like Pantech EX. Obviously EX plays Nada first match, and Nada beats Stork which causes a bit of an upset. Next up is FBH, which Nada with his strong TvT stands a fair chance of beating. After that it's highly possible that EX could beat Samsung. Thus one upset (Nada > Stork), and one evenly matched game (Nada = FBH) could cause a massive upset. All I'm saying is that the winner stays on format would clearly disadvantage some teams too much, and having it just some of a time would leave a lot to luck. For me, the current set-up is nicely balanced, especially with the ace match at the end.
As to proleague teamplay... I agree with you that the teamplay isn't very evident in the proleague, but as mentioned earlier, Starcraft is mostly a 1v1 (if only because most leagues are 1v1 which prevents most players from becoming dedicated team players). That doesn't mean that the proleague is not a team sport, just like the Formula 1 is a team sport. The team strategy part of the proleague (and what makes it so interesting to me) is done before games. It's about the players recruited by the team, the team strategy per match (compare Lecaf's match strategy with say KTF's strategy), the team practices and coach influences. Most of these things we don't see, we only see the effects of it. That said, I'm not against your ideas.
The StarBrain idea is interesting, as is the team melee idea. Of course, team melee would be like 2v2, except rarer. Why would a player become a team melee player, thus cutting himself off from all play except proleague play (sure, he could still play 1v1, but the time he spends practising team melee, other players will spend practising 1v1).
Finally, the maps were ... interesting. DMZ was awful, obviously. As mentioned earlier, Fantasy wasn't part of the MSL, but it does seem to be against Terran. Monty wasn't that bad and as mentioned, by DjEtter, it forced some innovative strategies to be created. Geometry was obviously very imbalanced, but the Terran mirror matches on geometry were very enjoyable. Still, they should take geometry out. All in all, I enjoy new maps. Perhaps they should send the maps to be played to the pro-teams a week before they announce them, and then pick some of the maps out of the bunch?
In the end, I'm happy with the proleague as it is. I don't watch every match, but I support my team religiously, and each match is tense. I wonder what changes they will make though...
PS. Can anyone tell me when the major leagues start again (MSL, OSL, SPL)?
|
great read! i like the idea of playing older maps, something like the classic map of the week would be nice...
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
I wish all new posters would make well thought out first posts like Daigomi. There's a lot of trut to what he said.
|
Canada7170 Posts
On July 31 2007 08:20 Carnac wrote:
I wish all new posters would make well thought out first posts like Daigomi. There's a lot of trut to what he said.
Holy that's a long first post.
Just because its your first post, Daigomi, doesn't mean you will get shot down. You obviously put a lot of effort into this post.
|
Braavos36369 Posts
thats a sick first post, awesome
|
Osaka27118 Posts
On July 31 2007 04:11 Daigomi wrote:
Firstly, I know this is my first post and my whole post will probably be shot down for just that reason, but I have been a member for a few years now, and I've been following the pro-scene since the days of Boxer vs Yellow. Obviously, due to my crappy internet connection, I haven't been able to follow it all the time, but I do my best to stay up to date. This season was the first season I could actually follow the three main leagues! That said, I don't agree with all your ideas.
No post gets shot down if it is a good one. Glad you made this your first stop.
The first reason, and main reason, I don't agree with most of your ideas is that they aim to increase the entertainment of the proleague, but I believe that it's at the cost of some balance issues.
Your idea of splitting up the leagues... well, there's nothing wrong with it, but I also don't see the point of it. You say that if ACE loses to Samsung in the first week of play, and Samsung is leading the league, ACE only has one more head to head match vs Samsung to make up any ground. This is the basis of all big leagues, leagues are not about single team vs. team performances, but about sustained team performances. Take KTF this season. They beat Samsung twice yet it didn't make any difference. That said, it doesn't mean that individual matches, and rivalries, aren't important: They're just not as important as consistent performance.
I disagree with you. Almost all major sports in North America are aligned this way, with conferences, to make the end of the season very exciting. If you are competing with only half the teams for a playoff spot, and you play those teams more often, then the games become much more intense. Consistent performance, of course it is important. However games are that much more meaningful when they are against your conference rivals.
The second consequence you mention is the lack of rivalries. As mentioned earlier, I agree that it's not as important as consistent team performace, but it is still there. Take the FA Premier League this year, 20 teams, double round robin format, exactly the same as the Proleague, just bigger. Yet that doesn't stop rivalries from developing, especially among the higher ranked teams. Arsenal vs Liverpool, Man U vs Chelsea. Yet every single match is important, sometimes for first position, sometimes for a top four position. Either way, it's always tense.
To be fair, the Premiership has a lot more going for it to generate rivals. Decades of tradition, geographical and linguistic loyalties. With all teams based in Seoul, I believe you need something more to generate these rivalries. Right now, the only way it happens is when teams meet in the playoffs. The chances of them meeting again the next year are incredibly slim. I'm just trying to force the issue a bit.
As to your idea of changing the play day format, there's only one 2v2. As you say, it's a team league, but starcraft is mostly an individual game. One 2v2 seems to me to be the perfect balance. Teams are put in the difficult situation of either creating a fixed 2v2 team, which focuses those players on teamplay (and possibly removes them from 1v1 leagues) or using makeshift 2v2 teams, but allowing more flexibility in your line-up. As to the placement of the 2v2 game, 3rd game seems perfect to me. This is clearly the most important spot for any game, and thus it increases the importance of the 2v2 match, making it more prominent than just 1 out of 5 games. Teams like Samsung have shown that.
Yep, I agree with you here. Sometimes when I watch though, the 2v2 just seems to drag compared to the rest of the match. I don't have great ideas for it other than the ones I posted.
The idea of winner stays on is a bit circumspect as it allows teams to, technically, win the league with one strong player. Even if, like you say, they only make use of that format once every 3 weeks, it is still bound to screw over someone. Say there's a very tight battle for first spot, and the first team plays against the second team, the first team fielding a strong balanced squad (eg. MBC) against the second team that has a slightly worse line-up, but one strong player (eg. CJ). Having the bad luck of drawing the winner stays on format for this match-up would clearly disadvantage the balanced squad. Even worse, a team like Samsung sits in fourth position (in this example). They have a very good chance of winning the league, but due to a bad start they've only barely made it in. In the last match, the match that they need to win to maintain fourth position, they draw someone like Pantech EX. Obviously EX plays Nada first match, and Nada beats Stork which causes a bit of an upset. Next up is FBH, which Nada with his strong TvT stands a fair chance of beating. After that it's highly possible that EX could beat Samsung. Thus one upset (Nada > Stork), and one evenly matched game (Nada = FBH) could cause a massive upset. All I'm saying is that the winner stays on format would clearly disadvantage some teams too much, and having it just some of a time would leave a lot to luck. For me, the current set-up is nicely balanced, especially with the ace match at the end.
I don't agree with you at all here I am afraid. The MBC TeamLeague that used this format was one of my favorites of all time. The suspense of seeing the players take down opponent after opponent... no pre-arranged matchups. It helped avoid a lot of the mirror match-up tedium we are seeing now, and made for some great matchups. In StarCraft, every team has a player that can beat anyone else, so I don't agree with your example of the star vs the balanced team. Nobody stands out that much to me, and I don't think it disrupts balance.
As to proleague teamplay... I agree with you that the teamplay isn't very evident in the proleague, but as mentioned earlier, Starcraft is mostly a 1v1 (if only because most leagues are 1v1 which prevents most players from becoming dedicated team players). That doesn't mean that the proleague is not a team sport, just like the Formula 1 is a team sport. The team strategy part of the proleague (and what makes it so interesting to me) is done before games. It's about the players recruited by the team, the team strategy per match (compare Lecaf's match strategy with say KTF's strategy), the team practices and coach influences. Most of these things we don't see, we only see the effects of it. That said, I'm not against your ideas.
Yep, it is a delicate balancing act. I appreciate what they do do.
The StarBrain idea is interesting, as is the team melee idea. Of course, team melee would be like 2v2, except rarer. Why would a player become a team melee player, thus cutting himself off from all play except proleague play (sure, he could still play 1v1, but the time he spends practising team melee, other players will spend practising 1v1).
I agree.
Finally, the maps were ... interesting. DMZ was awful, obviously. As mentioned earlier, Fantasy wasn't part of the MSL, but it does seem to be against Terran. Monty wasn't that bad and as mentioned, by DjEtter, it forced some innovative strategies to be created. Geometry was obviously very imbalanced, but the Terran mirror matches on geometry were very enjoyable. Still, they should take geometry out. All in all, I enjoy new maps. Perhaps they should send the maps to be played to the pro-teams a week before they announce them, and then pick some of the maps out of the bunch?
In the end, I'm happy with the proleague as it is. I don't watch every match, but I support my team religiously, and each match is tense. I wonder what changes they will make though...
I thought TvT was enjoyable the first few times, but when a map becomes a single matchup map, there is something wrong with it.
Again, I am not looking to turn the league on its head, I just want some variety. There are so many games played that I think it gives the league some wriggle room to try something new. You couldn't ever implement these in the individual league because the games are too rare and precious. I think the proleague is the perfect venue to try something new.
PS. Can anyone tell me when the major leagues start again (MSL, OSL, SPL)?
It will be updated in the forums soon. Thanks for your quality input. 
|
Welcome to TL, Daigomi!
OSL: ODT ends on the 8th, group selection will be about a week later. So probably either the 22nd or 24th.
MSL: Survivor ends on the 16th, so late August/early September.
PL: No idea.
|
thanks for the new addition, nice read. i do agree that certain things should be done to spice up the proleague, and i especially liked the dual conferences idea. more rivalries mean more emotional investment for the fans and players, equals more passion and excitement. perhaps the all-kill format should be used at a certain part of the season. nothing is more exciting for the players and the fans than losing a set 2-0, only to have your ace take it home for you 2-3. however, this system does not reward squad depth (lol imagine estro winning the proleague if up.magic 3-0'ed everyone with weird and bizzare builds all the way to the finals), so perhaps this is why this format is not used.
oh, and since this a mani post, i thought i'd start the manliness bandwagon: oh my god, it's still lunch but i got my 5 o' clock shadow just from reading this!
|
i love the concept of leagues...its always so stupid when all the teams in the entire league play eachother over a certain period of time, no other sports do that
|
that was a great read Mani
keep the good work
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
i agree with daigomi yeah
splitting leagues into divisions is to reduce travel time for the teams. there is no travel time for these teams, they go from their HQ to the venue. I'd rather see each team play each other instead of running into nonsense like in the NHL where Carolina and Edmonton hadnt played since 2003 before they met in the playoffs.
Team melee is gimmicky.. the sort of stuff you want to avoid once you're an established entertainment business. It doesn't add any watchability for the audience and since you have such a smaller idea of what each player is doing its harder to follow.
Having a live-coached Ace match seems kinda wierd as well, you're likely to see games of much worse quality.
|
|
|
I have a question, you said ace went 0-1 and thqt doomed them, couldn't they just win another match? Why would losing 1 game mean so much, i mean half the teams have to lose 1 game first playday, so are half of them now doomed? What if ace won every single match after that, or went like 65% winning after that, would they still have been doomed? I don't understand why you say the first game matters so much, maybe i missread something, can you explain?
Edit: I just noticed you responded to this on the second page. i will add something else when i finish reading.
Alright so i read it, but i still don't understand what the first match importance is, to compair this to like baseball or something, that's like saying losing your first game means end of the season for you. When there's still 160ish games left to play. Obviously ProLeague is played on a smaller scale, but still. If MBC were to lose their first match, then go like 13-10 after that they still break 50%, so i don't see what the issue with first game was.
|
There's a lot of clever suggestions here, I agree with all the comments SPIDERHUNTING-festo7. I can however fully appreciate some counter comments made against say, the KOTH winner stays system. But that's the strength of an article like this -> it promotes good debate.
|
Really a great read Mani.
Imo I'd like to see more "fun games" to watch. Basically FFAs and Team melee. I wouldn't necessarily want these in any of the leagues, but more showmatches of this sort would be great. Even more 2v2s would be entertaining.
I also think that the maps were a heavy downfall for this season as the majority of them are horrible and can't be used. I kind of enjoyed Monty Hall just because it wasn't a natural type of map which lead to a large portion of innovative strategies, but imo it should be tossed for next season.
Small rant: I'm so sick of neutral buildings in maps. Something like the center temple on RT is fine, but maps that abuse the neutral buildings are just so boring and annoying.
|
I think that the winner-stays idea is good. In the league each team faces each one twice, so it could be once with standard format and the other one with winner-stays. This does focus more on 1v1 (less 2v2) but doesn't take too much from stronger teams vs 1 player wonder teams.
Another idea would be making game 1 the grudge game, like challenging 1 player of the other team to face X player of your team, but with the chance to decline. As a matter of 'honor' the challenge should be fair and meaningful (ie. CJ challenges Khan | Savior vs FBH @balanced TvZ map).
Another idea would be to make matches home-away (each one selecting ong/mbc - if a conferences idea goes through should be separated by each station naturally). When your team plays at home, you have some sort of leverage against the away team. Like choosing maps for game N, banning X player of the opponent team to play in X map, the challenge game named before, forcing the other team to announce his player in certain map before they do. Anything that would give the team some advantage over the other one, not match winning, but emphasizing the home-away thing and making meaningful that they play twice throughout the season.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
Finally, I get to reply. Internet was down for three days so I tried replying on 3g and it swallowed my whole reply.
I disagree with you. Almost all major sports in North America are aligned this way, with conferences, to make the end of the season very exciting. If you are competing with only half the teams for a playoff spot, and you play those teams more often, then the games become much more intense. Consistent performance, of course it is important. However games are that much more meaningful when they are against your conference rivals.
When you mentioned the divisions idea I assumed you were talking about the US league format. As FakeSteve said though, the divisions were created to cut down on the travelling done by the teams. And while this does increase the times teams match-up against each other, it doesn't give such a balanced result. It's hard to see how a more balanced league format can be found than the current one. I think somewhere in the league (around 18 matches in) the difference between the third place and the 8th place was 1 match.
As to the rivalries, I'd much rather see rivalries evolve naturally than be forced upon the teams by the groups. If the teams are separated that might prevent some natural rivalries from developing (OGN Sparkyz vs MBC Game, ACE vs EX). Rather, teams would have purely professional rivalries, which I don't think could ever run as deep as a more personal rivalry. Separating the teams will also prevent some interesting fights from happening, like fights to not get last place (pantech/ace - boxer/nada).
Since there are no geographical divisions teams would either have to be separated randomly (which could lead to very unbalanced groups) or they would have to be split up based on strength which would make the groups less intense. The reason I say it won't be as intense is that there will be fewer teams fighting for each position, and fewer teams will be on the same skill level. For instance, say Group A has teams #1, #3, #6, #7, #10, #12 while Group B has teams #2, #4, #5, #8, #9, #11 in them. Group A would then, taking this seasons stats, have Samsung, MBC, CJ, KTF, Hanbit, Airforce. Looking at this group you can already see the problem: Samsung and MBC are in a different league, they won't have too much trouble qualifying. CJ and KTF might fight among themselves, but they should lose to the top teams (barring KTF's inconsistency), while they should beat Airforce and Hanbit comfortable (once again, barring KTF's inconsistency). Airforce and Hanbit are both just screwed. Compare this to the league where all 12 teams are in. KTF/CJ have about 6 teams on their own level which should make for comfortable games, while Hanbit/ACE have about 4 teams on their level. The same goes for the top teams, as I said earlier, at round 18 there were 8 teams that still had a shot for a top 4 place. If the groups were split up then Samsung/MBC must be expected to take the top 2 spots, while KTF or CJ could cause an upset every few seasons.
To be fair, the Premiership has a lot more going for it to generate rivals. Decades of tradition, geographical and linguistic loyalties. With all teams based in Seoul, I believe you need something more to generate these rivalries. Right now, the only way it happens is when teams meet in the playoffs. The chances of them meeting again the next year are incredibly slim. I'm just trying to force the issue a bit
I didn't take that into consideration at all. I would like to say that we should just give the pro-teams some time to develop these rivalries naturally, but chances are Starcraft won't last that long. That said, maybe if these pro-teams stuck around, spread out a bit to form sc2 teams, and who knows what else, teams might become a bit more consistent, and thus develop strong consistent rivalries.
Yep, I agree with you here. Sometimes when I watch though, the 2v2 just seems to drag compared to the rest of the match. I don't have great ideas for it other than the ones I posted.
I blame the maps. The few games I saw on Vampire were all interesting, and even the games on DMZ were interesting (if very unbalanced). Unfortunately Chariots of Fire seems to leave teams with two choices: cheese, or mass air. Cheese is fun to watch, mass air is not so fun. Chariots just doesn't have a nice middle of the map area, where large armies can clash. All the battles happen in players bases, and is usually between two players only.
I don't agree with you at all here I am afraid. The MBC TeamLeague that used this format was one of my favorites of all time. The suspense of seeing the players take down opponent after opponent... no pre-arranged matchups. It helped avoid a lot of the mirror match-up tedium we are seeing now, and made for some great matchups. In StarCraft, every team has a player that can beat anyone else, so I don't agree with your example of the star vs the balanced team. Nobody stands out that much to me, and I don't think it disrupts balance.
Maybe no-one stands out right now, but still, it will give teams with top performing players (stork/sea/free) a big boost up. Other teams like Soul who's best players' stats are "Hwasin 9-6" or "Sheis 8-4" clearly can't compare with Samsung's "Firebathero 10-2" and "Stork 15-4". This might be an interesting format for a smaller league, but for the most prestigious team league it seems a bit circumspect.
Again, I am not looking to turn the league on its head, I just want some variety. There are so many games played that I think it gives the league some wriggle room to try something new. You couldn't ever implement these in the individual league because the games are too rare and precious. I think the proleague is the perfect venue to try something new.
As I said at the end of my first post, I like the Proleague and I enjoy following it. I definitely don't watch all the games, just like I don't watch all the Premiership games. I follow my one team. That said, I have thought of a way to make the league more exciting, and it's a subtle way that won't turn the league on its head. Money. I read recently that pro-team sponsors get 8 times their money's worth in advertising with the pro-team sponsorships. 8 times! Clearly more money could be invested in the sport. Think about the raised stakes if the double the money was up for grabs. Teams would no longer risk throwing weak line-ups in to save their players for the 1v1 tournaments. Rivalries would develop much faster since even two losses in the league against the same team could cost you the league.
I think the problem is that players don't mind taking less money for Starcraft. It's still Starcraft. Who cares if you're receiving an average pay if you get it for playing Starcraft. The problem is of course, that once Starcraft is no longer played, all these players will have a mediocre education, and nothing to show for it. I really think they should invest more in the game!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
