|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Bo3 was a disaster for LCS and I'm glad they're moving on from it. It didn't help the players, it didn't help the teams, it didn't help the viewers, it destroyed the schedule, it was boring as fuck, and no one cared about it outside of some people who secretly think playoffs would be better if they were Bo13 win-by-two.
The main part of the announcement that I don't like is the viewership bonus. That seems like just a free giveaway to G2/UOL/etc. How are smaller teams supposed to hit these bonuses and compete with teams that already had a lot more money than they did? And does this keep teams forever in the cycle of signing washed-up old veterans instead of developing promising new talent?
On October 30 2017 23:04 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2017 22:58 Redox wrote:
Idk what you mean with obscuring strength.
But obviously the shitty thing is that they cut the number of games almost in half. Even less than half for NA. No idea why people on reddit seem to be happy about those changes. Essentially Bo3 allow the group play to more closely match team strength going into playoffs. Where as Bo1 like this allows more upsets where teams that have no chance in playoffs look stronger going into playoffs. Same way the Worlds format makes teams look stronger or weaker than they are until you get into the bracket stage. I don't think it's a conincidence that every year you have the same narrative going into worlds and the first week of worlds. In fact worlds plays out exactly the same every single year. "This year Non-KR so strong! - > Week 1 look how strong they are! Maybe they have a chance -> Meme week 2 collapse but still have chance in bracket for gets that got out! -> Bracket loss , oh well they tried their hardest Gap closing!!".
I think you just took a completely unrelated phenomenon (western teams being complete ass at adapting) in arguing against Bo1, because if your theory is that Bo1 masks team strength until Bo3, well, why are there week 2 Bo1 collapses? If anything, Western teams definitely could use more work on their Bo1 game, since they have consistently shown trouble getting out of groups at Worlds (and no, the answer isn't more fucking Bo3 series in Worlds groups, agh).
More generally, I have never really thought that the Bo1 standings were illegitimate. Did FNC just get "lucky" when they went 18-0? Has there been any Bo1 split champion that didn't deserve it? Sure, anybody can get unlucky on one day. But if you consistently get "lucky" throughout the season, you are probably just a better team than the team that is consistently "unlucky" throughout the season.
|
If you go back looking at strength of the teams that finished in top spots in the League then look at how they performed in the Playoffs it's not always correlated. In fact there are examples like IMT, TL and Impulse that faltered hard come playoffs while teams like TSM, CLG and C9 often over perform their placements.
My opinion is that the two systems are not comparable. The seedings into the playoffs for finishes in the league distorts the actual strength of the teams in the playoffs. So you have teams finishing higher than they would have if otherwise placed. That's why I argue that giving another kind of reward for league finishing outside of playoffs would be better. Or they just put more emphasis on it.
Week 2 collapse is not a western thing. It's a NA thing. It's important to distinguish those two.
edit: Also really dislike people claiming Bo3 was a disaster while not acknowledging the group format Riot EU forced. It's very hard to tell which had a greater impact on overall loss of interest. LCK has been running bo3 for years and yet there is lots of interest there. Why this big difference? Just the different audiences? Or is it their better scheduling and production? I'd have liked to try some kind of compromise instead of just defaulting to "this just can't work!!".
|
Bo3 is crap as a viewing format when you go over 2 sets at a time. Korea gets away with it because its esports culture has evolved past "games on friday/weekend". I don't blame Riot for moving back to a more accessible format as their new structure gets implemented in NA or keeping EU afloat while they work out needed changes to adjust with the EU funding problems.
|
I didn't realize they were planning to franchise in 2019. Guess it's the US Net neutrality strategy. If you try enough times eventually people will be tired of fighting it.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On October 31 2017 01:29 Numy wrote:
edit: Also really dislike people claiming Bo3 was a disaster while not acknowledging the group format Riot EU forced. It's very hard to tell which had a greater impact on overall loss of interest. LCK has been running bo3 for years and yet there is lots of interest there. Why this big difference? Just the different audiences? Or is it their better scheduling and production? I'd have liked to try some kind of compromise instead of just defaulting to "this just can't work!!".
But we did have a control group - NA, which saw its viewership plummet.
|
On October 31 2017 02:56 Numy wrote:
I didn't realize they were planning to franchise in 2019. Guess it's the US Net neutrality strategy. If you try enough times eventually people will be tired of fighting it.
I don't think the teams really care what the fans think if it goes against their own interests.
|
On October 31 2017 01:29 Numy wrote:
Also really dislike people claiming Bo3 was a disaster while not acknowledging the group format Riot EU forced. It's very hard to tell which had a greater impact on overall loss of interest. LCK has been running bo3 for years and yet there is lots of interest there. Why this big difference? Just the different audiences? Or is it their better scheduling and production? I'd have liked to try some kind of compromise instead of just defaulting to "this just can't work!!".
LCK usually only has 2 Bo3 matches a day if I am not mistaken. LCS EU/NA tried to cram 2 more by working a second stream. When I would watch LCS sure I would watch my team but I would watch the other matches too. Trying to have 2 streams on is impossible to watch unless you watch without the commentary, which I know some folks do. What's worse is that a lot of the times the interesting matches were on at the same time so you had to choose. Yes vods exist but it isn't the same as live watching when your mood is set for watching games. I feel the LCK has a more digestible format. They spread it over 5 days instead of 3. They only have one stream so your attention isn't divided. Way more easier to invest into a Bo3 if you wanted to watch one.
I think LCS can run Bo1's but like what was said before, have more of them so that the randomness is factored out. Spread it out over more days. Sure it will up your production costs, but it would be more digestible so people could watch more.
|
So, if I understand the changes correctly, there won't be any teams with more than one nationality beneath LCS level? If so, that seems pretty dumb.
|
On October 31 2017 07:00 Fildun wrote:
So, if I understand the changes correctly, there won't be any teams with more than one nationality beneath LCS level? If so, that seems pretty dumb.
Unless I misread somewhere its just that the teams that competed in those leagues would now make up new challenger. So teams like Giants' and G2's sister teams. But I could be wrong, I mostly skimmed
|
if you just doubled the amount of bo1 games in a season it would be the same competitively as bo3s really. The whole thing is literally just more games = better sample size. bo3 isn't inherently better at finding a 'good' team. It just causes more headaches scheduling
I honestly did wish they played more games tho, should be possible to fit in 50% more games by playing some on fridays and extending it a week or 2?
|
On November 02 2017 08:46 Kaneh wrote:
if you just doubled the amount of bo1 games in a season it would be the same competitively as bo3s really. The whole thing is literally just more games = better sample size. bo3 isn't inherently better at finding a 'good' team. It just causes more headaches scheduling
I honestly did wish they played more games tho, should be possible to fit in 50% more games by playing some on fridays and extending it a week or 2?
Especially since they don't need to break for Katowice now. Sadly a 50% increase makes side disadvantage, so you'd be going back to 4xrr to keep Bo1s or, in my opinion, 2xrr Bo2s.
|
On October 31 2017 03:13 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2017 01:29 Numy wrote:
edit: Also really dislike people claiming Bo3 was a disaster while not acknowledging the group format Riot EU forced. It's very hard to tell which had a greater impact on overall loss of interest. LCK has been running bo3 for years and yet there is lots of interest there. Why this big difference? Just the different audiences? Or is it their better scheduling and production? I'd have liked to try some kind of compromise instead of just defaulting to "this just can't work!!". But we did have a control group - NA, which saw its viewership plummet.
yeah. i used to watch live, but most of the time i just watch the vods - usually skipping through laning phase unless a lot of stuff happens - the day after.
|
|
|
Taking Hylissang as one of your two imported players seems very questionable. I get that they're trying to replicate UoL in NA, but still think it's not a good choice. Unless they're playing the long game and want to turn those two into coaches later, not like they need to worry about relegation.
|
Huge blow to UoL, torn between wanting it to be true so the players can benefit even more from their skill and wanting it to be not true for the sake of the org I'm a fan of
|
UoL announced they resigned Exileh few days ago, so it seems like they can stop even dreaming about being a top 3 European team. Rest in peace, ponies.
|
In regards to the Olympic committee announcement today
|
For lazy people + Show Spoiler +https://www.olympic.org/news/communique-of-the-olympic-summit
The development of "eSports"
The Summit discussed the rapid development of what are called "eSports", and the current involvement of various Olympic Movement stakeholders. The Summit agreed that:
- "eSports" are showing strong growth, especially within the youth demographic across different countries, and can provide a platform for engagement with the Olympic Movement.
- Competitive "eSports" could be considered as a sporting activity, and the players involved prepare and train with an intensity which may be comparable to athletes in traditional sports.
- In order to be recognised by the IOC as a sport, the content of "eSports" must not infringe on the Olympic values.
- A further requirement for recognition by the IOC must be the existence of an organisation guaranteeing compliance with the rules and regulations of the Olympic Movement (anti-doping, betting, manipulation, etc.).
The Summit asked the IOC together with GAISF in a dialogue with the gaming industry and players to explore this area further and to come back to the Olympic Movement stakeholders in due course.
The addition of 'may' and 'could' suggests that no decision regarding ellegibility of e-sports as olympic games in this respect has been made. I did not see anything that implied gaming 'should' be seen as a sport according to the IOC.
|
Yeah, but what esports are in the Olympics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
