|
That first group of 4 in the Ro32 is stacked in comparison. Gogo Thorzain though!
|
On May 22 2011 07:26 Dexington wrote:
That first group of 4 in the Ro32 is stacked in comparison. Gogo Thorzain though!
Well the winner of Thorzain vs Hasu will have a easy. Haypro is still in slump. He lost all games in todays WCG qualifiers.
|
When did Destiny qualify?
|
Its a shame more top EU didnt enter, and Hasu Thorzain and Haypro drawing each other is harsh. I think Hasu will make it.
|
United States1050 Posts
Thanks everyone for participating today, we start back up tomorrow at the same time, 10:30 AM PDT!
|
Keep trying Grubby 
|
Alex when will be results of qualifier #1 posted?
|
oh man, unlucky grubby had to face nerchio in the first round. Nerchio is such a beast!
|
United States1050 Posts
On May 22 2011 22:44 Frankon wrote:
Alex when will be results of qualifier #1 posted?
I am not sitting on these results or anything, the moment I get the results they will be posted.
|
United States1050 Posts
Players who are still in, we start back up in 23 minutes!
|
On May 22 2011 07:29 425kid wrote:
When did Destiny qualify?
First qualifier.
|
United States1050 Posts
|
On May 22 2011 07:06 DoomsVille wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 04:59 Corrik wrote:On May 22 2011 04:55 DoomsVille wrote:On May 22 2011 04:52 Corrik wrote:On May 22 2011 04:50 Mordiford wrote:On May 22 2011 04:45 Corrik wrote:On May 22 2011 04:40 Mordiford wrote:On May 22 2011 04:34 Nerdslayer wrote:On May 22 2011 04:31 biamila wrote:
All I'm saying is that to qualify, you still have to win 5 matches, against master and grandmaster competition. The odds of getting placed into a bracket where there were 32 weak competitors seems... unlikely to me. tell that to RGlFuRy, ROOTDestiny I doubt they complained about there brackets. Anyway it seems im getting flamed by fanatic fanboys that cant see reason ill just shut up now. You're being as hyperbolic as the person you responded to. You've had like 1-2 people call you out, and they both have a point... This system is quite widely used, and if you dislike it here, you should sort of be consistent in your dislike of it, personally I think in the long run, it would sort itself out, but in the short run it can result in some people largely lucking their way through. I mean, who can honestly say Destiny should be in the league over Dimaga? Even in the GSL, there are open qualifiers and there aren't any seeds to my knowledge, I think that IGN should use them however since it'd be a better short-term solution, while a general open bracket and bottom 16 drop out would only really filter out the chaff after a few seasons and even then there would be some variance in and out, from season to season. Alex has acknowledged that there might be some issue, and he's said they're working on possible seeding for the future, problem solved. The most able way to seed the tournament in the future would be to award ranking points for how far they went in the tournament (sort of how MLG does it). However, it would have been way unfair to do that in this season with Europe not being invited to the last season. In the future, that may be a fair way around the issue of loaded brackets. But, until the IPL has gone through a few seasons (and probably incorporated all regions), it is a tricky issue to handle. For example, if you seed by ladder rankings they don't match up by region and a lot of top ladder players aren't actually the top tier players you would be used to seeing. Will people complain if a nobody is ranked in the top 5 or such? Perhaps If you use prior results rankings before all regions are incorporated, is it fair to a new region being added (say SEA or KOR) to start with no possibility of points compared to regions who already had experience in the tournament for some time? I'm sure this would draw complaints also. All in all, this is probably the best format for this tournament at this time being. There could be changes in the future to improve it down the line, but not at this point, in my opinion. I actually don't like the MLG system at all, but I guess it could work for an online format since it's really easy to have to miss a LAN tournament that constantly moves location but it's pretty easy to keep up in attendance with an online tournament. Like you said however, they couldn't really use this format until they've capped out region availability so no one starts with a disadvantage. I think seeding based on performance in the previous qualifier may have helped, or even using whatever non-ladder consistent set of tournament stats they have available. Just to prevent some of the silly match-ups we've seen in the first rounds versus some of the fairly easy ones we've seen in other rounds. I agree they should maybe award a point for each win in a qualifier with those points carrying over to the next if they don't qualify. The person with the top points gets a top seed for the next qualifier. It won't change how loaded the brackets could be, but it would help provide a little evenness of having a top tier player in each bracket. This is exactly what I've been saying they should do since the first qualifier. Obviously it won't solve all problems, but it is certainly better than the current system. Although the best system is a TSL style of qualification system. I'm not sure why they didn't just copy the TSL model exactly. Then we agree on they could do something to expand on it. I am saying you are arguing against OPEN brackets basically, and you keep going at it. Most of us are here to discuss who is winning and enjoy in the upsets. Not to see people arguing about the viability of OPEN brackets. The format is set. It's not changing. Let's focus on the matches. Let's just agree to drop it and focus on the results. = ) It has much less to do with OPEN brackets and more to do with the way these OPEN brackets are set up. Compare this to an open system where only the winner gets in (TSL). In that case, even if you get an easier bracket section, at the end of the day you still have to face some of the highest level players towards the end of the bracket. In this case (IPL that is), you only need to make the top 8. Which means you could qualify with a very easy bracket section and never ever face a very top level player. It is a combination of this + the lack of seeding that makes IPL's qualification system much much less than ideal. They should have taken a hint from TSL and limited qualification to only the top 2 players and then have points ranking system for everyone else. Or they should have had some sort of seeding. There are plenty of ways to improve on the current system. Anyways, that's all I have to say on this matter. Alex has already said they are working on it so I'm happy. They've delivered top quality so far so I'm sure they'll come up with a good solution. I just want people to understand why there needs to be some alterations to the qualification system.
Yeah, I like the idea of tournaments where only the winner gets a seed, and the rest of the qualifiers come from points rankings from the 4 combined tournaments.
On the other hand, that approach seriously favors pro-gamers that can make all four tournaments, vs regular guys that can't make 4 full weekends consecutively but are still worthy of playing in the tournament. In the end, the big, no-seed tournament like they've been doing may be best.
|
|
|
|
|
question why does the obs keep scrolling in then out multiple times a game? its unnecessary
|
Could you add a national flag next to the qualified players in first post/OP. It would be nice to see where the players are coming from and if only one player from, lets say, Germany qualifies the Germans would feel pride over their sole representative in the IPL.
|
On May 23 2011 05:11 puzzl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 07:06 DoomsVille wrote:On May 22 2011 04:59 Corrik wrote:On May 22 2011 04:55 DoomsVille wrote:On May 22 2011 04:52 Corrik wrote:On May 22 2011 04:50 Mordiford wrote:On May 22 2011 04:45 Corrik wrote:On May 22 2011 04:40 Mordiford wrote:On May 22 2011 04:34 Nerdslayer wrote:On May 22 2011 04:31 biamila wrote:
All I'm saying is that to qualify, you still have to win 5 matches, against master and grandmaster competition. The odds of getting placed into a bracket where there were 32 weak competitors seems... unlikely to me. tell that to RGlFuRy, ROOTDestiny I doubt they complained about there brackets. Anyway it seems im getting flamed by fanatic fanboys that cant see reason ill just shut up now. You're being as hyperbolic as the person you responded to. You've had like 1-2 people call you out, and they both have a point... This system is quite widely used, and if you dislike it here, you should sort of be consistent in your dislike of it, personally I think in the long run, it would sort itself out, but in the short run it can result in some people largely lucking their way through. I mean, who can honestly say Destiny should be in the league over Dimaga? Even in the GSL, there are open qualifiers and there aren't any seeds to my knowledge, I think that IGN should use them however since it'd be a better short-term solution, while a general open bracket and bottom 16 drop out would only really filter out the chaff after a few seasons and even then there would be some variance in and out, from season to season. Alex has acknowledged that there might be some issue, and he's said they're working on possible seeding for the future, problem solved. The most able way to seed the tournament in the future would be to award ranking points for how far they went in the tournament (sort of how MLG does it). However, it would have been way unfair to do that in this season with Europe not being invited to the last season. In the future, that may be a fair way around the issue of loaded brackets. But, until the IPL has gone through a few seasons (and probably incorporated all regions), it is a tricky issue to handle. For example, if you seed by ladder rankings they don't match up by region and a lot of top ladder players aren't actually the top tier players you would be used to seeing. Will people complain if a nobody is ranked in the top 5 or such? Perhaps If you use prior results rankings before all regions are incorporated, is it fair to a new region being added (say SEA or KOR) to start with no possibility of points compared to regions who already had experience in the tournament for some time? I'm sure this would draw complaints also. All in all, this is probably the best format for this tournament at this time being. There could be changes in the future to improve it down the line, but not at this point, in my opinion. I actually don't like the MLG system at all, but I guess it could work for an online format since it's really easy to have to miss a LAN tournament that constantly moves location but it's pretty easy to keep up in attendance with an online tournament. Like you said however, they couldn't really use this format until they've capped out region availability so no one starts with a disadvantage. I think seeding based on performance in the previous qualifier may have helped, or even using whatever non-ladder consistent set of tournament stats they have available. Just to prevent some of the silly match-ups we've seen in the first rounds versus some of the fairly easy ones we've seen in other rounds. I agree they should maybe award a point for each win in a qualifier with those points carrying over to the next if they don't qualify. The person with the top points gets a top seed for the next qualifier. It won't change how loaded the brackets could be, but it would help provide a little evenness of having a top tier player in each bracket. This is exactly what I've been saying they should do since the first qualifier. Obviously it won't solve all problems, but it is certainly better than the current system. Although the best system is a TSL style of qualification system. I'm not sure why they didn't just copy the TSL model exactly. Then we agree on they could do something to expand on it. I am saying you are arguing against OPEN brackets basically, and you keep going at it. Most of us are here to discuss who is winning and enjoy in the upsets. Not to see people arguing about the viability of OPEN brackets. The format is set. It's not changing. Let's focus on the matches. Let's just agree to drop it and focus on the results. = ) It has much less to do with OPEN brackets and more to do with the way these OPEN brackets are set up. Compare this to an open system where only the winner gets in (TSL). In that case, even if you get an easier bracket section, at the end of the day you still have to face some of the highest level players towards the end of the bracket. In this case (IPL that is), you only need to make the top 8. Which means you could qualify with a very easy bracket section and never ever face a very top level player. It is a combination of this + the lack of seeding that makes IPL's qualification system much much less than ideal. They should have taken a hint from TSL and limited qualification to only the top 2 players and then have points ranking system for everyone else. Or they should have had some sort of seeding. There are plenty of ways to improve on the current system. Anyways, that's all I have to say on this matter. Alex has already said they are working on it so I'm happy. They've delivered top quality so far so I'm sure they'll come up with a good solution. I just want people to understand why there needs to be some alterations to the qualification system. Yeah, I like the idea of tournaments where only the winner gets a seed, and the rest of the qualifiers come from points rankings from the 4 combined tournaments. On the other hand, that approach seriously favors pro-gamers that can make all four tournaments, vs regular guys that can't make 4 full weekends consecutively but are still worthy of playing in the tournament. In the end, the big, no-seed tournament like they've been doing may be best.
I was in probably the weakest section of the bracket and I still had to/would have had to play 2 relatively high skilled players to qualify. It's a little easier than it should be unfortunately, but it is that or the point system which highly relies on players showing up for each tournament which I like even less
|
what's the deal with a third player always being the game? there is almost always one more spot below the 2 players on the production tab or whatever tab is being used. it disables the resource/supply counter blizzard implemented for 1v1 games. I find it completely annoying, especially since i have yet to witness the casters discuss supply in the few games i've stuck around to watch.
|
On May 26 2011 03:07 Complete wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2011 05:11 puzzl wrote:On May 22 2011 07:06 DoomsVille wrote:On May 22 2011 04:59 Corrik wrote:On May 22 2011 04:55 DoomsVille wrote:On May 22 2011 04:52 Corrik wrote:On May 22 2011 04:50 Mordiford wrote:On May 22 2011 04:45 Corrik wrote:On May 22 2011 04:40 Mordiford wrote:On May 22 2011 04:34 Nerdslayer wrote:
[quote]
tell that to RGlFuRy, ROOTDestiny I doubt they complained about there brackets. Anyway it seems im getting flamed by fanatic fanboys that cant see reason ill just shut up now. You're being as hyperbolic as the person you responded to. You've had like 1-2 people call you out, and they both have a point... This system is quite widely used, and if you dislike it here, you should sort of be consistent in your dislike of it, personally I think in the long run, it would sort itself out, but in the short run it can result in some people largely lucking their way through. I mean, who can honestly say Destiny should be in the league over Dimaga? Even in the GSL, there are open qualifiers and there aren't any seeds to my knowledge, I think that IGN should use them however since it'd be a better short-term solution, while a general open bracket and bottom 16 drop out would only really filter out the chaff after a few seasons and even then there would be some variance in and out, from season to season. Alex has acknowledged that there might be some issue, and he's said they're working on possible seeding for the future, problem solved. The most able way to seed the tournament in the future would be to award ranking points for how far they went in the tournament (sort of how MLG does it). However, it would have been way unfair to do that in this season with Europe not being invited to the last season. In the future, that may be a fair way around the issue of loaded brackets. But, until the IPL has gone through a few seasons (and probably incorporated all regions), it is a tricky issue to handle. For example, if you seed by ladder rankings they don't match up by region and a lot of top ladder players aren't actually the top tier players you would be used to seeing. Will people complain if a nobody is ranked in the top 5 or such? Perhaps If you use prior results rankings before all regions are incorporated, is it fair to a new region being added (say SEA or KOR) to start with no possibility of points compared to regions who already had experience in the tournament for some time? I'm sure this would draw complaints also. All in all, this is probably the best format for this tournament at this time being. There could be changes in the future to improve it down the line, but not at this point, in my opinion. I actually don't like the MLG system at all, but I guess it could work for an online format since it's really easy to have to miss a LAN tournament that constantly moves location but it's pretty easy to keep up in attendance with an online tournament. Like you said however, they couldn't really use this format until they've capped out region availability so no one starts with a disadvantage. I think seeding based on performance in the previous qualifier may have helped, or even using whatever non-ladder consistent set of tournament stats they have available. Just to prevent some of the silly match-ups we've seen in the first rounds versus some of the fairly easy ones we've seen in other rounds. I agree they should maybe award a point for each win in a qualifier with those points carrying over to the next if they don't qualify. The person with the top points gets a top seed for the next qualifier. It won't change how loaded the brackets could be, but it would help provide a little evenness of having a top tier player in each bracket. This is exactly what I've been saying they should do since the first qualifier. Obviously it won't solve all problems, but it is certainly better than the current system. Although the best system is a TSL style of qualification system. I'm not sure why they didn't just copy the TSL model exactly. Then we agree on they could do something to expand on it. I am saying you are arguing against OPEN brackets basically, and you keep going at it. Most of us are here to discuss who is winning and enjoy in the upsets. Not to see people arguing about the viability of OPEN brackets. The format is set. It's not changing. Let's focus on the matches. Let's just agree to drop it and focus on the results. = ) It has much less to do with OPEN brackets and more to do with the way these OPEN brackets are set up. Compare this to an open system where only the winner gets in (TSL). In that case, even if you get an easier bracket section, at the end of the day you still have to face some of the highest level players towards the end of the bracket. In this case (IPL that is), you only need to make the top 8. Which means you could qualify with a very easy bracket section and never ever face a very top level player. It is a combination of this + the lack of seeding that makes IPL's qualification system much much less than ideal. They should have taken a hint from TSL and limited qualification to only the top 2 players and then have points ranking system for everyone else. Or they should have had some sort of seeding. There are plenty of ways to improve on the current system. Anyways, that's all I have to say on this matter. Alex has already said they are working on it so I'm happy. They've delivered top quality so far so I'm sure they'll come up with a good solution. I just want people to understand why there needs to be some alterations to the qualification system. Yeah, I like the idea of tournaments where only the winner gets a seed, and the rest of the qualifiers come from points rankings from the 4 combined tournaments. On the other hand, that approach seriously favors pro-gamers that can make all four tournaments, vs regular guys that can't make 4 full weekends consecutively but are still worthy of playing in the tournament. In the end, the big, no-seed tournament like they've been doing may be best. I was in probably the weakest section of the bracket and I still had to/would have had to play 2 relatively high skilled players to qualify. It's a little easier than it should be unfortunately, but it is that or the point system which highly relies on players showing up for each tournament which I like even less
Point systems are a lot lower variance though, and are probably overall better for progaming. It's a lot harder for good players to consistently do well when they risk not qualifying because their brackets are stacked while other people basically auto-qualify if they're GM level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
aTnSocke vs 
ROOTDrewbie vs 
LiquidHayprO vs 
