|
On July 20 2017 07:55 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 07:50 Mensol wrote:
BIG vs VP in semis and BIG vs astralis in finals is needed for csgasm. BIG vs SK or BIG vs Gambit ty. No astralis in my finals thanks)
I think Gambits going to lose against fnatic. Zeus has never beat this fnatic in bo3 afaik. fnatic is looking average at best but its going to be their second semis at major this year. perhaps they are looking average to me because i dont like the way they play... i just find them boring since they are not a very tactical team like astralis/SK/BIG/Gambit.
|
Magic Woods9326 Posts
Bo3 round robin with one giant 16 team group, top 8 advance problem solved lul 
|
On July 20 2017 08:30 Epoxide wrote:Bo3 round robin with one giant 16 team group, top 8 advance problem solved lul
I agree that would be the fairest way to do it. Month long major lets GO!
|
Woohoooooo crazy draws!
Gambit > fnatic
Astralis < SK
BIG > Immortals (if tabseN shows form which he will!)
North < Virtus Pro
Might aswell have BIG in finals :D Anddduh Gambit wins it if they make finals =>
|
In some ways its nice that these teams will make deep runs in big tournaments because they get big match experience and develop some character. The stakes are totally different and its a really good test for the teams that havent been there and done that. It also shows you which players are ready now based on how they perform in the games.
Like for example a guy like Adren I have no doubt he has big match temperament. But Tabsen ? Hes great but now he can really prove himself at the biggest stage.
|
On July 20 2017 07:43 Rebs wrote:
Not all teams get to play all tournaments for various reasons (like Gambit)
Just wondering, what is the reason Gambit has not been playing more? Visa issues?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
The bracket jesus T_T
How does it even work? Astralis and SK are bout 3-1
Should if anything be switched with North vs SK and Astralis vs VP
BIG & Gambit 3-0 should face a 3-2 team which is VP/Fnatic/Immortals which fine
Which leaves VP 3-2. SK 3-1. Astralis 3-1. North 3.1
VP played North and SK played Astralis why not just make it SK vs VP/North and Astralis vs the other XD
|
There will never be an optimal format which is time constraint as Rebs pointed out in several of his posts , If you believe that it matters that much if SK vs Astralis is a QF or a Semi then its up to you , but i think in the grand scheme of things those 2 would bound to meet (if they are truly the 2 best) and only one would've gone further , so them doing it at the QF instead of a Semi is not a big deal , what matters that the best teams got their legends status , only Faze which are on paper a very strong team couldn't do it and they have no one to blame , they lost 0-3 for crying out loud.
I actually like the Swiss system the best , the only thing i would change will be a BO3 on the 2-2 matches , i.e elimination , that will make the format optimal in my mind for a time constrained tourney.
|
France9034 Posts
In the continuing tradition of shitty draws, SK v. Astralis in the quarters. Another finals two rounds too early...
Yes, they're bound to meet. At least in the semis, or in the finals at this point.
|
FYI from the legends 6 teams retained and only 2 got replaced - Navi & Faze out and IMT & BiG are in.
Which means the format works quite well in regards to "best teams advance" if you think that legends is indeed that important (as a lot of ppl here were trying to say) and you want to bias the draw towards them then you need to rethink as the format as it is still favors the legends.
Previous major 6 legends retained and 2 got replaced - Liquid and F3 out and North & Faze in.
tldr - the swiss format does his job in retaining the legends and creeping up the best teams from the challengers.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Legend spot and ranking is good, but there is only 2 of these a year with a few other tournaments competing with these in terms of prize pools so it shouldn't be the only design for the tournament to get legend status.
Should be to find the best team, having arguably the best two teams in the RO8 (current Major champions and IEM World Champions vs the team in the best form who have won the last 3 lan's they have attended) seems abit wrong no matter how they fared in the BO1!!!!! group stage system.
Give me GSL Group stage which is bo1 until losers and winners matches when its bo3. That the only way this system is fair if you can't have a full bo3 all the time, which i can understand why you can't or in CSGO it would literally take 3 weeks to do a 16 team lan event lol
|
France9034 Posts
On July 20 2017 18:08 bluzi wrote:
FYI from the legends 6 teams retained and only 2 got replaced - Navi & Faze out and IMT & BiG are in.
Which means the format works quite well in regards to "best teams advance" if you think that legends is indeed that important (as a lot of ppl here were trying to say) and you want to bias the draw towards them then you need to rethink as the format as it is still favors the legends.
Previous major 6 legends retained and 2 got replaced - Liquid and F3 out and North & Faze in.
tldr - the swiss format does his job in retaining the legends and creeping up the best teams from the challengers.
Retaining the legends shouldn't be a "goal". I want the best teams to win and advance, not the former legends. Even more so considering the fact that there's six months between majors now, and that legend status is basically useless as an indicator of how good a team is.
Let's take BIG for example. Yes, they had an incredible run so far. But they've only proven that they're good on inferno. In any Bo3 I'd still favor Cloud9 over BIG to beat nearly any opponent right now.
I agree with Pande, GSL would be better with Bo3 matches as soon as there's either a spot in the playoffs or elimination, at stake.
|
On July 20 2017 18:38 Ragnarork wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 18:08 bluzi wrote:
FYI from the legends 6 teams retained and only 2 got replaced - Navi & Faze out and IMT & BiG are in.
Which means the format works quite well in regards to "best teams advance" if you think that legends is indeed that important (as a lot of ppl here were trying to say) and you want to bias the draw towards them then you need to rethink as the format as it is still favors the legends.
Previous major 6 legends retained and 2 got replaced - Liquid and F3 out and North & Faze in.
tldr - the swiss format does his job in retaining the legends and creeping up the best teams from the challengers.
Retaining the legends shouldn't be a "goal". I want the best teams to win and advance, not the former legends. Even more so considering the fact that there's six months between majors now, and that legend status is basically useless as an indicator of how good a team is. Let's take BIG for example. Yes, they had an incredible run so far. But they've only proven that they're good on inferno. In any Bo3 I'd still favor Cloud9 over BIG to beat nearly any opponent right now. I agree with Pande, GSL would be better with Bo3 matches as soon as there's either a spot in the playoffs or elimination, at stake.
How would you decide the GSL groups ? if you go by the legends status which you seem to believe is wrong then there isn't any good way to seed them , unless you want to give up on the legends idea which will lead to the chaos that we have in Dota2 regarding invites and what not , i like it when its CLEAR who gets invited and who isn't.
As i said , for me the elimination is the only BO3 , because the 2-1 and 2-0 teams also playing BO3 is crazy long (for playoffs as you suggested).
I mentioned the legends retention because some poster above me suggested that its not fair for the legends to play each other while the challangers play each other in the swiss format (and also in the playoffs) , so i replied in saying that if it was "unfair" then more legends would be replaced by the challengers and its clearly not the case.
And having a dark horse happens (BiG) , other teams could've banned inferno if they felt its their only map.
I agree that i want the best teams to advance , its everyone goals but you need to take into account timelines , and for me the current format works really well , it can be better with eliminations being Bo3 but i can see that prolonging the tourney to be a long one.
What teams do you feel is underserving and which is deserving in the current lineup ? how many "misses" this format had in this Major ?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
My Groups would have been 2x Legend 2x Challenger x 4 groups so like;
Astralis North Big Mouz
VP Faze G2 Immortals
Fnatic Gambit Vega Penta
SK Navi F3 C9
Something like that, you get 1 stupidly tough group i guess like the SK group there but if its BO1 first match, then bo3 winners losers final match you get to play all groups game 1 and winners matches day 1 of lan. Then day 2 all losers matches bo3. Then day 3 all Final matches. Which still only works as playing 4x bo3 a day after the hectic first day!
In your last question for me BIG would not got top seed not saying wouldn't have gotten out but wouldn't have taken top seed for sure in a GSL system probably. Faze i doubt would have went out in a b3 losers / final match.
The seeding i used for groups was based on top 4 get 1 group each from last major, then the other 4 get put in after it randomly.
|
On July 20 2017 19:51 Pandemona wrote:
My Groups would have been 2x Legend 2x Challenger x 4 groups so like;
Astralis North Big Mouz
VP Faze G2 Immortals
Fnatic Gambit Vega Penta
SK Navi F3 C9
Something like that, you get 1 stupidly tough group i guess like the SK group there but if its BO1 first match, then bo3 winners losers final match you get to play all groups game 1 and winners matches day 1 of lan. Then day 2 all losers matches bo3. Then day 3 all Final matches. Which still only works as playing 4x bo3 a day after the hectic first day!
In your last question for me BIG would not got top seed not saying wouldn't have gotten out but wouldn't have taken top seed for sure in a GSL system probably. Faze i doubt would have went out in a b3 losers / final match.
As I asked Rag , what injustice happened in this tourney ? which teams were deserving and which weren't to advance?
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Injustice might be to strong of wording but it's more that the grand final game of Astralis vs SK who both went 3W 1L in a bo1 format are now facing off in the RO8 where you get BIG vs Immortals and one of them is getting further than Astralis/SK this tournament.
The imo the top bracket is way better than the bottom half. Gambit look very very good and solid, then you add SK and Astralis meaning the final could be another one sided affair with a weaker team in it.
Quite easily could have BIG/immortals vs North and winner of that is in the grand finals of a major without having to face a top notch team (if VP turn into what we seen the last 3 months xD)
But again Injustice is a way to strong word for this, just i have always always been a strong advocate of making any sort of BO1 system disappear because you get way to much random results.
You follow Dota as well so it would be like TI7 turning into a bo1 swiss style tournament and the top 8 advance to a bo3 single elimination tournament...it doesn't work as you know in that game (as well as every other esport) that winning a bo1 say EG vs Planet Dog (hellraisers now) could quite easily happen and EG one of the most consistent teams this year could go out etc etc.
Used to trigger me in Starcraft 2 when tournaments were putting bo1 groups and it doesn't work it is 1 6 pool and your tournament life could be over, it doesn't make the best even/spectacle.
|
On July 20 2017 19:51 Pandemona wrote:
My Groups would have been 2x Legend 2x Challenger x 4 groups so like;
Astralis North Big Mouz
VP Faze G2 Immortals
Fnatic Gambit Vega Penta
SK Navi F3 C9
Something like that, you get 1 stupidly tough group i guess like the SK group there but if its BO1 first match, then bo3 winners losers final match you get to play all groups game 1 and winners matches day 1 of lan. Then day 2 all losers matches bo3. Then day 3 all Final matches. Which still only works as playing 4x bo3 a day after the hectic first day!
In your last question for me BIG would not got top seed not saying wouldn't have gotten out but wouldn't have taken top seed for sure in a GSL system probably. Faze i doubt would have went out in a b3 losers / final match.
The seeding i used for groups was based on top 4 get 1 group each from last major, then the other 4 get put in after it randomly.
The main drawback to your suggestion is actually what you are trying to prevent , which is relying on the legend status for ranking as you stated before they are unreliable , this will create cases where the challenger teams which should be ranked very high are all of the sudden the best team in the group and you might have the best 3 teams in one group.
Swiss has better spread i feel and as i said before if we do losers Bo3 then its the best format (better then GSL to my opinion).
I like that you need to lose to 3 different teams that progressively lost then just 2 (GSL) to be out.
|
On July 20 2017 20:01 Pandemona wrote:
Injustice might be to strong of wording but it's more that the grand final game of Astralis vs SK who both went 3W 1L in a bo1 format are now facing off in the RO8 where you get BIG vs Immortals and one of them is getting further than Astralis/SK this tournament.
The imo the top bracket is way better than the bottom half. Gambit look very very good and solid, then you add SK and Astralis meaning the final could be another one sided affair with a weaker team in it.
Quite easily could have BIG/immortals vs North and winner of that is in the grand finals of a major without having to face a top notch team (if VP turn into what we seen the last 3 months xD)
But again Injustice is a way to strong word for this, just i have always always been a strong advocate of making any sort of BO1 system disappear because you get way to much random results.
You follow Dota as well so it would be like TI7 turning into a bo1 swiss style tournament and the top 8 advance to a bo3 single elimination tournament...it doesn't work as you know in that game (as well as every other esport) that winning a bo1 say EG vs Planet Dog (hellraisers now) could quite easily happen and EG one of the most consistent teams this year could go out etc etc.
Used to trigger me in Starcraft 2 when tournaments were putting bo1 groups and it doesn't work it is 1 6 pool and your tournament life could be over, it doesn't make the best even/spectacle.
As i stated before the QF being the Semi`s is a reasonable complaint but it had some randomness in it , you assume wrongfully that in a GSL format SK will be first and Astralis will be first as well so the current scenario won't happen , you are predicting results that were never played , i will give you a simple example , SK vs BiG first BO1 in the GSL format , BiG wins on inferno (could happen  ) then BiG goes to win vs whoever on the other side and SK goes 2nd , we have the same thing no ?
The Bo1 in the GSL format will cause the same thing.
Also Dota2 have Bo1 in losers brackets in TI no ? Also TI is vastly longer event , as stated numerous times if you had 1 more week you could've done better to reduce variance, sure.
|
|
|
France9034 Posts
That's what was used before (with the exception of Cologne 2015 which had a wonky format).
A group would have a team that made top 4, a team that made top 8, a team that qualified 3-0 (or 2-0 in groups) at the qualifier, and a team that qualified 3-1/3-2 (or 2-1 in groups).
I don't really like it either, but I feel it's less prone to upsets. Ideally I'd like something closer to TI, with round robin that eliminates maybe one or two teams, and seed the rest in a bracket according to their placement. And no bo1. Bo2 or Bo3.
But time & money are always in the way.
I'm not saying upsets are bad, but I'd rather see less of them due to Bo1.
Also, to answer that:
What teams do you feel is underserving and which is deserving in the current lineup ? how many "misses" this format had in this Major ?
I don't think teams are "undeserving" per se. And misses are, ultimately, teams that fuck up somehow. Like technically there should be one legend less here and FaZe in, but somehow they completely flopped.
But still, I also see that BIG qualified on the back of one map and that it wasn't insta-banned against them is normal, as their strength on the map showed progressively through the groups, and eventually against SK.
I also see that IMT qualified by beating Na'Vi, Flipsid3 and Vega, which is certainly not the hardest of runs.
You also have cases like Fnatic and G2, which had a similar run to 2-2, facing both Na'Vi and Astralis. Then I'd rank Gambit + C9 as stronger opponents than F3 + VP. In the end, I think it sucks that a bo1 decided between these two teams who would go to playoffs and who would not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
