|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On February 08 2017 22:30 Sent. wrote:Round 1 of the play-in stage needs seeding. Not sure if I like like retiring the International Wild Card events, these were the only winnable tournaments for teams from wildcard regions.
You realize that your two sentences are contradictory? Because if you want to seed the Play-In, the only fair way to do so would be seed the 4 #3 teams from the non-wildcard regions, thus fucking over the wildcards more.
I think a little bit of randomness in Round 1 is fine because the threshold is so low. All you have to do is finish top 2 in a group of 3, and you get 2 games against every opponent. If you can't get out of that, you probably were going to be a G2-8 in groups anyway.
(Though imagine the salt if LMS/CN/EU get drawn into the same Play-In group.)
The only thing I really don't like is the asymmetry between regions they are introducing. For example, exempting KR from Play-In and giving EU but not NA a seed at MSI. It's pretty uncontroversial for now, but it is likely to become more and more controversial in the future. I guarantee you the day they have to decide to favor NA over EU, it will all be RIOT NA BIAS this and "FUCK EU" - RIOT that.
Also it's such a huge advantage to KR to avoid the Play-In: they get to scrim and watch how the meta evolves as other teams play.
Finally I'm surprised they went back to an outdoor stadium. Bird's Nest is an incredible venue, but I distinctly remember Riot saying that Sangam wasn't really an ideal venue for an event like Worlds.
|
On February 09 2017 00:30 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2017 22:30 Sent. wrote:Round 1 of the play-in stage needs seeding. Not sure if I like like retiring the International Wild Card events, these were the only winnable tournaments for teams from wildcard regions. Also it's such a huge advantage to KR to avoid the Play-In: they get to scrim and watch how the meta evolves as other teams play.
I dont think it is that big of a deal. In the end it is only an advantage of the 3rd place Korean team over the 3rd place EU/NA/LMS team. An advantage they easily deserve and they probably dont need.
And maybe it will turn out that playing the play-in stage is actually helpful to warm up, get used to the stage etc.
|
Combining IWC into Worlds just makes Worlds even longer, the games will still be bad. I'm not a fan. Avoiding the play in really isn't much of an advantage, they could beat every team in it without preparation. It would have been nice to have a 4th Korean team there though.
|
On February 09 2017 01:19 Ansibled wrote:
Combining IWC into Worlds just makes Worlds even longer, the games will still be bad. I'm not a fan. Avoiding the play in really isn't much of an advantage, they could beat every team in it without preparation. It would have been nice to have a 4th Korean team there though.
Why?
|
I think the gap between Korea and other regions is so huge that Riot should consider adding a loser's bracket in the playoffs. It was a little awkward at last Worlds where H2K placed 4th partially because they didn't have to play against Koreans until semifinals.
@GrandInquisitor
I don't think they're contradictory. I want a separate and winnable tournament for wildcard regions because it's fun to watch a tournament where your team gets to compete with similarly skilled teams from other regions and it's impossible to have something like that at Worlds stage. Sure, they'll get to play against each other in the play-in stage but in the end their "competition" will be about who manages to dodge teams from big regions longer. It's just not fun to watch, a bit like it wasn't fun to watch foreigners in sc2 tournaments.
Seeding in the play-in stage is something entirely different. It doesn't take the chance to compete at Worlds away from the wildcard teams but it also doesn't fuck over third place teams from NA/EU/LMS/CH with random sorting.
|
On February 09 2017 01:42 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 01:19 Ansibled wrote:
Combining IWC into Worlds just makes Worlds even longer, the games will still be bad. I'm not a fan. Avoiding the play in really isn't much of an advantage, they could beat every team in it without preparation. It would have been nice to have a 4th Korean team there though. Why?
Having 3 Korean teams make the semifinals just isn't quite soulcrushing enough.
|
|
|
Anyone have a strong gut feeling for how hard the ivern nerfs will hit? Looks pretty bad to me as I think daisy not regenerating does a lot to weaken objective pressure. But I've only played a few games with him so I'm not very confident in my opinion.
|
I don't see how the new worlds and msi formats solve anything. The new worlds format is basically the old format except where the #3 teams have to fight through a sea of jizz to prove themselves worthy to lose to meaningful teams. MSI has its own sea of jizz to fight through. The major issue I see is that the tournament results of a ~70% preseeded group stage will affect future seeding. It's not hard to realize that regions that have to plat fewer games (and thus have to reveal fewer strategies, preferences, weaknesses, etc.) are at a distinct advantage and will earn more seeds. Plus, the length of worlds (and MSI to a lesser extent) looks to to be multipatch; so the play in teams are at a further disadvantage of having less practice time on the group stage patch. If it's all on one big patch, then that will be god awful to watch for 2+ months. Plus it'll be a huge disconnect between what's watched vs what's played.
It also doesn't solve the problem of the worlds buffs/nerfs that happen. Teams play vie for worlds/Msi on on patch but may have a completely different meta come the tournament. For example, Cinderhulk MSI and Fiona/Darius Worlds; teams that don't have the personnel that can easily adjust to wacky stupid power spikes are at a disadvantage. Some teams understand a patch better; some teams fit a patch better. Most of the results (excluding Korea) look like they're fleeting especially so given how drastically most teams change (both in performance and players) between various events/seasons. So measuring a small data set of results doesn't seem effective for tournament balance. It'd be far better to have more international play so we could accurately measure region strength.
|
I think it legitimizes the other regions more at the expense of 3rd seeds.
Other regions get games against the major regions (even if its only 3rd seeds) and they're more a part of the actual event itself. It lends itself to setting up and supporting other regions for coming out and proving thier worth or seeing just where they stand as opposed to IWC which always felt like relegating them to the kid table.
makes it more like a "world" championship rather than a "major region" championship. At least they can be at the same table at the 3rd seeds with a legitimate chance of proving thier worth of becoming a major region.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
Plus, and it's a silly thing, but there's a huge difference between going to Worlds and playing to qualify for Worlds. This makes it clear that a team from every region is going to Worlds, and that does a lot for the wildcard regions.
|
Is it true that control wards cover whole baron and dragon pits now?
|
On February 09 2017 05:53 Sent. wrote:
Is it true that control wards cover whole baron and dragon pits now?
No mention of it in the notes.
|
On February 09 2017 01:42 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 01:19 Ansibled wrote:
Combining IWC into Worlds just makes Worlds even longer, the games will still be bad. I'm not a fan. Avoiding the play in really isn't much of an advantage, they could beat every team in it without preparation. It would have been nice to have a 4th Korean team there though. Why?
So we can see better teams at worlds.
Seeing how Riot is starting to adjust to formats every so slightly to match regional strength, why not take the next step and have a 4th seed from Korea? 4th seed from Korea is still probably a top 5 team in the world.
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On February 09 2017 06:04 dsyxelic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 01:42 Gahlo wrote:On February 09 2017 01:19 Ansibled wrote:
Combining IWC into Worlds just makes Worlds even longer, the games will still be bad. I'm not a fan. Avoiding the play in really isn't much of an advantage, they could beat every team in it without preparation. It would have been nice to have a 4th Korean team there though. Why? So we can see better teams at worlds. Seeing how Riot is starting to adjust to formats every so slightly to match regional strength, why not take the next step and have a 4th seed from Korea? 4th seed from Korea is still probably a top 5 team in the world.
I think exactly the opposite. Building region asymmetry into the rules is a really bad precedent and requires Riot to make discretionary decisions based on regional stereotypes and gut feelings.
Worlds isn't about collecting the top 16 teams in the world. It's about watching the 16 teams that came out on top in their regions play against each other.
It's the same thing with the Olympics. The 100th best Chinese ping pong player is unquestionably better than the best Nigerian ping pong player. So? Doesn't mean that he's more entitled to represent his country at the Olympics.
|
On February 09 2017 06:04 dsyxelic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 01:42 Gahlo wrote:On February 09 2017 01:19 Ansibled wrote:
Combining IWC into Worlds just makes Worlds even longer, the games will still be bad. I'm not a fan. Avoiding the play in really isn't much of an advantage, they could beat every team in it without preparation. It would have been nice to have a 4th Korean team there though. Why? So we can see better teams at worlds. Seeing how Riot is starting to adjust to formats every so slightly to match regional strength, why not take the next step and have a 4th seed from Korea? 4th seed from Korea is still probably a top 5 team in the world.
Then just watch LCK and ignore Worlds.
|
On February 09 2017 06:59 GrandInquisitor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 06:04 dsyxelic wrote:On February 09 2017 01:42 Gahlo wrote:On February 09 2017 01:19 Ansibled wrote:
Combining IWC into Worlds just makes Worlds even longer, the games will still be bad. I'm not a fan. Avoiding the play in really isn't much of an advantage, they could beat every team in it without preparation. It would have been nice to have a 4th Korean team there though. Why? So we can see better teams at worlds. Seeing how Riot is starting to adjust to formats every so slightly to match regional strength, why not take the next step and have a 4th seed from Korea? 4th seed from Korea is still probably a top 5 team in the world. I think exactly the opposite. Building region asymmetry into the rules is a really bad precedent and requires Riot to make discretionary decisions based on regional stereotypes and gut feelings. Worlds isn't about collecting the top 16 teams in the world. It's about watching the 16 teams that came out on top in their regions play against each other. It's the same thing with the Olympics. The 100th best Chinese ping pong player is unquestionably better than the best Nigerian ping pong player. So? Doesn't mean that he's more entitled to represent his country at the Olympics.
Doesn't have to be gut feelings.
Could just have that apply to the winner of last Worlds which will 99% be Koreans. And if another region takes Worlds, why not give them the same privilege? Even if they aren't the strongest region and got a fortunate run it shouldn't affect how the competition shakes up too much. But generally it will apply to the strongest region.
Also that's your own idea of how Worlds should be. Riot seems to be shifting from that and that's fine. My idea of Worlds is that while it should give representation to other regions all over the world, high level of competition should take precedence.
That doesn't require having 10 LCK teams in Worlds, but I also do think it'd be nice to have a top 5 team in the world play at Worlds.
In my perfect world though we'd have separate tournaments. One more 'olympic' like where even shit teams from underrepresented regions will have the chance to play against the best (example: Jaedong vs InvaderZim or w.e at WCG when it was basically a top 2 player in the world vs a shit tier amateur who was lower ranked than I was). The other being the best teams from the best regions, with slight weighting by regional strength (with the chance to fight for spots between the fringe teams).
On February 09 2017 07:26 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 06:04 dsyxelic wrote:On February 09 2017 01:42 Gahlo wrote:On February 09 2017 01:19 Ansibled wrote:
Combining IWC into Worlds just makes Worlds even longer, the games will still be bad. I'm not a fan. Avoiding the play in really isn't much of an advantage, they could beat every team in it without preparation. It would have been nice to have a 4th Korean team there though. Why? So we can see better teams at worlds. Seeing how Riot is starting to adjust to formats every so slightly to match regional strength, why not take the next step and have a 4th seed from Korea? 4th seed from Korea is still probably a top 5 team in the world. Then just watch LCK and ignore Worlds.
Or watch both LCK and how the best of the best stack up internationally.
Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.
|
"Just watch LCK" isn't viable anymore now with good ole Spo-TV ruining my viewing experience every other day. I've tried switching to Korean streams, or whatnot, but I end up missing all the buildup to teamfights when playing phone games.
|
Then pick between worse play or worse commentary. LS or an all Korean semis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
