|
On December 16 2010 07:48 SmoKim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 05:16 dbizzle wrote: I will definitely be contacting pro teams on map selection as well as you guys. I want to hear everyone's thoughts on every aspect of sc2, pro or casual gamer. that's all i need to hear, might as well talk to the ICCUP people about the maps at the same time data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" edit: btw you should add your map poll in your OP so more people will see it and vote
good idea
|
ESEA season 8 Starcraft 2 signups are now open! You may now create a team and register for the open league. The registration can be found here http://esea.net/index.php?s=league&d=register . We will be adding 2-3 maps to the map pool so stay tuned for that as well. ESEA has also developed a new match reporting system that will automatically update the match score once you upload the replays.
-The entry fee will be $9 per player -Premium is not required -The team limit will be 32 teams -The official format will be 4 bo3 1v1s with an ACE match tiebreaker -Map format will work as: ESEA picks the first map, loser picks the second map, loser picks third map
|
|
On December 16 2010 12:59 blade55555 wrote: Whats the fee?
its updated $9
|
i think switching out maps like blistering sands and steppes of war for maps that actually take skill to play on (i liked sanshorn mists or w/e, and fighting spirit was decent) will make the game better. I think maps like metalopolis yield the best games just due to their structure. They are big, balanced, and kinda hard to cheese on. That being said it would also be fresh to see some new maps in the mix, just be sure to test them before hand. Some custom maps lag REALLY hard for some reason >.<
Also, before paying the entry fee are we going to be informed of what we're playing for? And is the fee $9 per player, or $9 per team?
|
The prize pool is going to be $5,000
we havent decided the exact split yet
The entry fee is $9 per player
|
On December 16 2010 13:06 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: i think switching out maps like blistering sands and steppes of war for maps that actually take skill to play on (i liked sanshorn mists or w/e, and fighting spirit was decent) will make the game better. I think maps like metalopolis yield the best games just due to their structure. They are big, balanced, and kinda hard to cheese on. That being said it would also be fresh to see some new maps in the mix, just be sure to test them before hand. Some custom maps lag REALLY hard for some reason >.<
Also, before paying the entry fee are we going to be informed of what we're playing for? And is the fee $9 per player, or $9 per team?
per player, and yes we will definitely test the maps and talk to pros and you guys about it. As a zerg player I'm not a fan of steppes of war and smaller maps. We won't take them out yet and the map list is not final.
|
You should put only iccup maps in the pool so you can allow a mode where there can be observers for each team with only the vision of their playing teammate. Not being able to see your team play is not fun at all, I think it's a must. Also, just my opinion but I think that all Blizzard maps, except Lost Temple, are bad. This could be a great way to promote custom made maps.
I would prefer bo1 too, again just my opinion. Brood war proleague style is just so great.
Cheers!
|
yea bo3s are great tests of skill but its really hard to provide coverage of those types of cws since all the games happen at the same time. You're not going to want to play 4 sets of bo3s back to back because that could take 4 hours O_O
|
On December 16 2010 13:30 NrG.NeverExpo wrote: yea bo3s are great tests of skill but its really hard to provide coverage of those types of cws since all the games happen at the same time. You're not going to want to play 4 sets of bo3s back to back because that could take 4 hours O_O
Well 4 hrs, we will see how to handle it, maybe for broadcasted matches we might split it up in 2 days
|
9$ per player? so essentially i should only let players that will get play time on the roster? Wouldnt it be better to have like a 40$ entry fee (roughly 9$/ player over 4 players) and then have unlimited roster sizes?
|
On December 16 2010 13:42 Holcan wrote: 9$ per player? so essentially i should only let players that will get play time on the roster? Wouldnt it be better to have like a 40$ entry fee (roughly 9$/ player over 4 players) and then have unlimited roster sizes?
You can pay for other players accounts, and you can pay for your entire team if you want. But it's still 9$ a player.
|
you didnt answer my question, which is, so its useless for me to add more than 4 people to my roster?
|
If you think that all 4 of you can play in every match, then I guess it is useless
Also if you have someone whos only going to be your manager (not play at all), they dont have to pay the league fee.
|
then i re-ask my other question, wouldnt it be better to have a set team fee, and have unlimited roster sizes? I just dont understand the reasoning of have a per player fee compared to having a universal team fee. I guess its good news that the manager doesnt have to pay to manage his team..
|
We dont feel that it is better - that doesnt mean it can't change for next season - but for this season its set as is.
|
thanks for the prompt responses.
|
Braavos36370 Posts
Wouldn't that just encourage everyone to buy 4 slots and then just substitute players? How are you going to police people cheating like this? Replay or IP login analysis? Do you even have access to that data?
|
On December 16 2010 15:17 Hot_Bid wrote: Wouldn't that just encourage everyone to buy 4 slots and then just substitute players? How are you going to police people cheating like this? Replay or IP login analysis? Do you even have access to that data?
As in using ringers for matches? We require them to list their battlenet unique ID in their profile settings once we set that up. After that it is up to the team to check it and we will be checking people's IDs as well.
Of course that is always a problem, and maybe in the near future we can find a better solution to this.
|
|
|
|
|