|
ok so i thought that TSL1 was too short. players like mondragon and idra got knocked out really fast, and we didn't get to see many of their games. maybe use the "swiss system" that is used in chess, instead of the knockout?
for example: there was 49 games in the TSL from the round of 16 onwards. if you did a swiss system with a BO1 in each round, you could have 4 rounds and 32 games, and a more balanced way of measuring everyone's skill. mondragon would get 4 games with bo1, and 10 games with bo3, instead of the 2 games that he got. not that i like mondragon, but i think lots of other people do 
a BO3 in each round would be an average of 80 games in total.
also with swiss system, the players are more closely matched, so it should give more spectacular games.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
Yes it was short and TSL will probably be a little more stretched out, but that's not exactly a good reason to switch to the Swiss system.
Elimination tournaments are established for a good reason for this kind of thing. It adds tons of excitement. It's also what everyone is used to.
I can tell you right now that it's not going to happen.
|
Swiss system would be very good.
The main reason why it is not used for sports is because of the amount of room needed to organize the event.
This is not the case for starcraft and therefor perfect!
It simply lower the variance which means less stress and better games.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
one reason 90% of large scale foreign tournaments fail is because they span so many months that the viewers lose interest rapidly.
|
Belgium6771 Posts
On June 07 2008 22:58 thedeadhaji wrote:
one reason 90% of large scale foreign tournaments fail is because they span so many months that the viewers lose interest rapidly.
Yes a lot of people said their interest was fading towards the end so this TSL's length was pretty much the maximum amount imo
|
On June 07 2008 22:58 thedeadhaji wrote:
one reason 90% of large scale foreign tournaments fail is because they span so many months that the viewers lose interest rapidly.
Yeah. I think there's a lot more pressure involved when you know you're one loss away from elimination too.
|
Germany1302 Posts
Stretch out = do it
swiss system = never
|
i would have liked to see a BO7 for the finals =p
if you had wanted another week of play, maybe have a losers bracket as well
actually that might add 2 weeks..
|
In my opinion the length was very good. I don't agree with it being too short.
|
On June 08 2008 00:29 Chosi wrote:
Stretch out = do it
what, don't stetch it out.
to be honest, the tourney lost some steam during the last two weeks when it was just 1 match a day.
|
WB/LB bracket would make it longer and more fair imo
But the major issue i had was during the ro32, sure audio streams were nice but video would own 
|
It would drag out too long. Bo is good enough.
|
An online tournament as long and big as TSL definantly does NOT need to be stretched out. The intrest could have been alot higher if you choosed a more compact format. There was way too much dead time and waiting in the first TSL for my liking.
edit: oh and thanks for the birthday logo :>
|
I do believe the Swiss system would extend the whole thing far too much, too many people would lose interest.
|
bo5 semi finals next time imo
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
semis were already bo5 this season
|
I think the length was very good. It doesn't need to be too long or people lose interest. Either way, I think more TSLs are better than longer ones.
|
On June 08 2008 09:35 fight_or_flight wrote:
I think the length was very good. It doesn't need to be too long or people lose interest. Either way, I think more TSLs are better than longer ones.
I agree... I think it was the perfect length... Too long = lose interest
|
I liked the length, but wouldn't mind if it was a tad bit longer. It's a breath of fresh air when the OSL/MSL drag out for what feels like forever.
Maybe another week for a couple stages, but anymore than that? No thanks.
|
The point with single elimination is, that it is very easy to understand, and see whos facing who, and how the standings are.
Not the fairest, but the easiest from organisation and for the viewers.
|
The only thing I can think of to make the TSL seem longer, is having the RO 32 on air, which it was not this time IIRC. I began to lose interest before the RO16 even started, because there was this looong qualification process, and then all these group stage matches I was not even able to see unless I downloaded a replay- and frankly, thats a hassle.
|
I think the length was just about right. I would have liked to see a bo7 finals, as said above, but it won't bother me if that doesn't happen in the future.
|
On June 08 2008 09:27 Carnac wrote:
semis were already bo5 this season
lol yes they were..heh...oops...lame...bed time for me
|
Maybe put the ro32 over two weekends and cast them? I'm sure that there would be no lack of volunteer casters for them but it would really be hectic trying to oganize that.
|
as for people saying swiss system would be longer, that's not true. it would be the same number of rounds. you only need log_2(n) rounds where n is the number of players. eg: 16 players = 4 rounds, 32 players = 5 rounds. exactly the same number of rounds as with elimination.
instead of "boring rounds" like the semis where there was only 2 people playing in a day, we would have all 16 people playing and it would be very interesting.
there would be a table listing the "score" of each player - that being the number of wins i suppose.
i think it would be easy to understand. it would be like a golf score table, except not negative.
i would rather see 7 games between different players, than one huge Bo7 between the same 2 players. you would get a variety of matchups and maps every day.
OK, so as an alternative, what about the "double elimination" format?
I believe it was used in the round of 32 ?
|
I think it's fine as it is now. IMO, a great thing about single eliminations is that anyone, even Mondragon, can lose. One lost match, and it's over. Sure, it awards luck more than the swiss system but what fun would it be knowing that the favourite will certainly win it? Unpredictability is essential for spectator sports.
|
Personally I like the knockout format for the TSL. It is less important for me as a spectator seeing the best player win the 5000. It is more important that the players give it their best shot no matter what stage of the tournament they are in. Mondragon is less likely to slack off if he knows he can be out by losing 2 out of 3 games compared to flattening out the variance so he knows he'll move on regardless of what happens due to his skill.
As a spectator it is also good that the game that you are watching matters. It would be terrible to watch lots of games that didn't really weigh heavily on the results.
I respect the standpoint that you want the best person to win though.
|
On June 08 2008 16:57 B1nary wrote:
I think it's fine as it is now. IMO, a great thing about single eliminations is that anyone, even Mondragon, can lose. One lost match, and it's over. Sure, it awards luck more than the swiss system but what fun would it be knowing that the favourite will certainly win it? Unpredictability is essential for spectator sports.
That is the worst part of bo1. You can lose a favorite against a random who have practiced a nice cheese on the map?
And I do not like the attitude we have, we are trying to avoid the best from winning, I think we should keep the bo3 all the way and a bo5 in semi and finals. So
Bo7 basicly gets borring because the players is not able to practice so many maps and strategies.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
These tournaments aren't about establishing who is the best player, it is about who copes best under pressure and is able to win when it really counts. Swiss just isn't as exciting as say Single/Double elim. You just don't get to see those games where you're one game from elimination. Seriously - would the finals have been as good as they were if it weren't for JF's awesome comeback? you tell me
|
On June 09 2008 03:27 Plexa wrote:
These tournaments aren't about establishing who is the best player, it is about who copes best under pressure and is able to win when it really counts. Swiss just isn't as exciting as say Single/Double elim. You just don't get to see those games where you're one game from elimination. Seriously - would the finals have been as good as they were if it weren't for JF's awesome comeback? you tell me
Exactly. Pressure = excitement
|
i think the problem towards the end was that that there were only 3-5 games a day, and not ness anyone you liked, ppl can't be bothered to hang around, maybe put both semi's in one broadcast and the same with the final and runners up.
I mean: Boy have we got a great line up for you today! 3-5 maps between two guys who lost last week!
i would like to see some sort of group stage tho
|
RElease the Reps ASAP. we want to view them . Yes the Vods are good but rep are more compact and less size. format was good i liked it.
|
short and sweet baby
On June 09 2008 11:08 gH-Nitrous wrote:
RElease the Reps ASAP. we want to view them . Yes the Vods are good but rep are more compact and less size. format was good i liked it.
Unfortunatley they said not releasing replays were part of their sponsorship contract with Razer...so yeah...not gonna happen..
|
Exactly. They want people to view the website and watch it live just like the other stations, so fat chance.
The length is close to perfection. The only thing I would look into is making the finals a Bo7. DB would take too long and all the players have a fair shot at the top prize.
|
You also have to think about the commentators. If the TSL gets stretched out, they'll have to give up a lot of their weekends to commentate.
|
Use the OSL model-- one game from each quarterfinals, then game 2/3 (if necessary) for the second day, etc. It would be much less boring than watching 5 PvP games in a row...
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On June 15 2008 01:53 intotherainx wrote:
Use the OSL model-- one game from each quarterfinals, then game 2/3 (if necessary) for the second day, etc. It would be much less boring than watching 5 PvP games in a row... that system is terrible
|
On June 15 2008 02:05 Carnac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2008 01:53 intotherainx wrote:
Use the OSL model-- one game from each quarterfinals, then game 2/3 (if necessary) for the second day, etc. It would be much less boring than watching 5 PvP games in a row... that system is terrible
I would actually find that very exciting indeed.
But i don't want to take a stance. TSL is good, doest matter how it's format is. I woudn't like to see Ro32 though. not even 16 actually. Ro 8 + semis + final is good. maybe put the final and losers on the same day. First losers and then the 'grand finale'. Would build up excitement more i think.
|
don't switch plz, no one's gonna bother watching WB / LB and so on and so on
|
Seriously, I can't understand ppl who got bored while the TSL came to the semifinals and finals. I don't like PvP very much but I still loved to watch the casts. And I don't think that TSL2 will be boring for anyone at any time because obviously most of the ppl who got bored followed the whole event very closely from the beginning and lost the hype over time. Next season many people wont tune in that early. Maybe when the ladder stage is over or even later and they wont get bored because TSL is too long.
I also found the RO8(?), where we could see 2 matches casted, more interesting than the 1-day-1-match format of the semifinals/finals.
I personally would've preferred a BO7 finals, too. I admit its would be pretty long if all 7 games had to be played. But on the other hand, if we would have had a 3-0 in the finals this season I would have been slightly disappointed.
Another thing I would love to see is casts of a group stage. Imho group stages are very cool and you get to see more different players (at least 4) on one casting day. Although I don't know if this is possible with the TSL's format. I mean it would be kinda weird if you would cast the group stage but not RO 32...
On a serious note, I wouldn't be disappointed if you guys would keep the format for season 2. I don't think it was bad at all.
|
On June 15 2008 02:05 Carnac wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2008 01:53 intotherainx wrote:
Use the OSL model-- one game from each quarterfinals, then game 2/3 (if necessary) for the second day, etc. It would be much less boring than watching 5 PvP games in a row... that system is terrible
Pretty much. Probably my least favorite round of OSL/MSL. I don't think it'd work particularly well for TSL either.
|
On June 08 2008 10:20 h3r1n6 wrote:
The point with single elimination is, that it is very easy to understand, and see whos facing who, and how the standings are.
Not the fairest, but the easiest from organisation and for the viewers.
that and all the games are more important.
|
On June 08 2008 16:16 qet wrote:
OK, so as an alternative, what about the "double elimination" format?
I believe it was used in the round of 32 ? Yea, why double elimination on round of 16 and forward?
It is both fairer and exciting.
|
Norway28648 Posts
no double elimination no swiss, bo7 finals sounds good tho
|
I like single elimination better.
Also the length of the TSL was great.
|
Norway28648 Posts
I can't think of a single sport event followed by huge numbers of people that actually practices double elimination. you lose- you're out is part of the excitement. it's not the best system for finding the most skilled player, but so what really.. :p
|
I liked the format. Swiss system is an interesting suggestion and has some good points, but honestly it is much more exciting as a viewer to see people fighting to stay alive! I don't think I could feel as much tension in each game of a series if I knew that this just means the player gets less points and ranked lower..
Honestly, who wants to watch the ladder qualification stages? Thats pretty much what swiss system feels like.
Edit: Bo7 finals sounds awesome. What an epic way to finish the thing off. Also has a nice progression of Bo3->Bo5->Bo7
|
I like the randomness feel. The feeling that anybody could win, not that JF didn't deserve the TSL victory. The best overall player does not always win, but someone almost as good do win.
Before Starcraft, I was into (Capcom) USA Street Fighter series tournament. There were so many chances for the best players with the best characters to win. Despite the amount of characters, it's gets very boring when you see mainly O.sagat (Super Turbo), Chunli (Third Strike), V-Sakura (Alpha 3) for the billionth time. Japanese tournament, however, was fast pace and unpredictable with their single match & single elimination format. That tournament, almost any character could win.
edit: however to be fair, USA players had to pay a hefty fee to enter so they're getting their money's worth at least. Starcraft tournies are usually free.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On June 16 2008 16:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I can't think of a single sport event followed by huge numbers of people that actually practices double elimination. you lose- you're out is part of the excitement. it's not the best system for finding the most skilled player, but so what really.. :p im a sucker for double elim  !
oh hoho many a good MSL runs
We wouldn't have had Reach/Chojja and the sexy maelstrom if it weren't for double elim!
Oov would have only won 2 MSLs!
etcetc
Ah i miss double elim msl
|
But double elimination is still exciting and just soooo much fairer
|
I think a group system would be rather excellent. 4 groups of 4, top 2 going into quarter finals. I thought GomTV GSI last season was awsome because the website was amazing. You had all the groups set out really well with links to matches and vods (not like Avertec Intel Classic that just has the VODs with barely any info on th groups making it a pile of shit).
Anyway, I for one would like a group system.
|
The only big change everyone will most likely see is a Bo7 Finals next season. DB takes too long. Group stages is possible in the near future.
|
Bo7 is an endurance contest, for the commentators and the spectators.
|
Bo7 are too exhaustive imho.
On June 20 2008 02:23 eat wrote:
I think a group system would be rather excellent. 4 groups of 4, top 2 going into quarter finals. I thought GomTV GSI last season was awsome because the website was amazing. You had all the groups set out really well with links to matches and vods (not like Avertec Intel Classic that just has the VODs with barely any info on th groups making it a pile of shit).
Anyway, I for one would like a group system. Isn't that how TSL Ro32 was done? Can it be done by groups for the whole elimination phase from Ro16 to finals? Like starts with 4 groups of 4 then 2 groups of 4, 1 group of 4, end?
Has this been done before? How exactly would first round match against second round? Anyway it doesn't sound neither as exciting neither as fair as double elimination... or not?
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
On June 20 2008 07:16 Ancestral wrote:
Bo7 is an endurance contest, for the commentators and the spectators.
dont forget the players :p
|
I think the system was fine of the original TSL, but should have some changes:
There should be 2 groups until the R16, same as uefa EC.
From R16 same as what TSL was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
