MLG has just launched their rules for the upcoming SC2 event in Raleigh, North Carolina -- reminder: tickets do go on sale tonight at 00:00 GMT (+00:00) -- and I wanted to see what the consensus is from you guys here at TeamLiquid.
The 7 maps selected can be found at the bottom and I've highlighted some other rules throughout that might be some talking points. I'm sure MLG employees will come in here and comment about what everyone is saying so feel free to be 100% open about every rule.
Equipment 1. Players must bring their own mouse, keyboard, headsets, and mouse pad. 2. Headsets must utilize a standard 3.5mm stereo headset jack with a separate 3.5mm microphone jack. Players may not use USB headsets. 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment. 4. All Players must submit their mouse, keyboard, and headset driver requirements by 11:59 PM ET on Monday, August 23rd. No drivers, that have not been previously submitted, will be installed at the Raleigh Competition. 5. All Player equipment is subject to approval. 6. Players may not use 3rd party Add-ons. 7. Players may not change the Computer/Monitor sound and video settings. 8. All User Interface setups will be confined to the Blizzard default options. 9. All interface changes must be supervised by a StarCraft 2 Referee or the StarCraft 2 Tournament Director.
General Rules 1. The latest official Patch version will be used throughout the Event. 2. Players may not appear on a Station with sponsor insignia that is not approved by MLG or conflicts with MLG sponsors. Players and Coaches may be asked to wear MLG apparel for all Matches. 3. In the case of a Computer/Monitor malfunction, the Game will be restarted from the beginning. 4. No Warm-Up Games may be played outside of scheduled Warm-Up periods. 5. During scheduled Warm-Up periods the winner can stay, but the loser must get up. 6. During scheduled Warm-Up periods, Players who haven’t been eliminated from the Event have priority over other Players regarding the use of open Stations. 7. Players who break General Rules #4-6 may be given a Foul (See Pro Circuit Conduct Rules). 8. If a Game is started without the approval of a Referee it will be restarted. If a Player fails to report to their Station within 5 minutes of the announcement, they will Forfeit the 1st Game. 10 minutes after the announcement, a Player will Forfeit their Match. If both Players Forfeit their Match, the higher seeded Player will win the Match. 9. Players may be disqualified if they leave their Station without their Referee’s permission, or are otherwise unable to play. Referees may set a time limit for a Player who has requested that they be allowed to leave their Station, however, Referees may also deny a Player’s request to leave their Station. Players may be disqualified if they haven’t returned by the end of the Referee’s set time limit. 10. In order to dispute Game results, Players must notify their Referee that they would like to Protest the Game. In order to dispute Match results, Players must notify their Referee that they would like to Protest the Match. Players must notify their Referee of their intent to Protest a Game before a new Game has begun. Players must notify their Referee of their intent to Protest a Match before the Match’s Score Sheet has been submitted to the Tournament Director.
Gameplay 1. No looking at an opposing Player’s Monitor or projected screen. Breaking this rule will result in a Forfeit of the Game. 2. No Pausing a Game without Referee’s permission. If an issue arises that requires a Pause, Players should contact their Referee immediately. Breaking this rule will result in a Warning. If a Player receives a 2nd Warning they will Forfeit their current Game (See Gameplay Rule #13). 3. Any sign of cheating may result in a Forfeit of the Game, disqualification from the Event, and ejection from the venue. 4. The Map for Game 1 of each Match will be selected by MLG and announced prior to the Event. 5. Prior to the start of a Best of 3 Game Match and the Blind Pick of Races, each Player may select one Map, from the list of Maps, that can’t be chosen for Games 2-3. The lower seeded Player will be given the opportunity to select a Map first. The higher seeded Player will then be given the opportunity to select a Map. 6. The loser of a Game must select the Map for the next Game. 7. No Map may be played more than once in the same Best of 3 Game Match, Best of 7 Game Match, or in the Finals. 8. Referees will conduct a Blind Pick of Races for Game 1 of a Match. 9. The loser of a Game may select a different Race for the next Game. 10. Players who quit out of a Game before it has ended, without Referee’s permission, will lose the Game. 11. Players who are disqualified prior to the start of a Game will not be allowed to play in the Game. Players who are disqualified during a Game must quit out of the Game. Players who are disqualified won’t receive any Rank Points for their ranking in the Event. 12. The higher seeded Player must host all Games in a Match. However, if a Match is broadcast, an observer will host all Games in the Match. 13. Only MLG Staff members may connect to the server as an observer. Inviting someone to observe a Match without Referee’s permission will result in a Warning. If a Player receives a 2nd Warning they will Forfeit their current Game (See Gameplay Rule #2). 14. If a Player loses their connection to the Host during a Game, the Game must be replayed. 15. The higher seeded Player must play as the Red team and the lower seeded Player must play as the Blue team. 16. If all Minerals on the Map have been consumed and no Units or Structures have been killed for 5 minutes, the Game will be replayed.
Settings All Games 1. Category = Melee 2. Mode = 1v1 3. Game Speed = Faster
Maps Blistering Sands Delta Quadrant Desert Oasis Kulas Ravine Lost Temple Metalopolis Steppes of War
Im going to post this here to keep everything in one place.
On August 04 2010 06:23 MLG.Shrew wrote: In the event that there is a rush for registration, this is the page you'd want to keep refreshing for the "buy now" button:
On August 04 2010 06:31 HDstarcraft wrote: Sounds all gravy to me. MLG is taking this to a professional level, and strict rules are necessary for SC2 to be recognized as such.
Are players allowed to change in-game settings (Video to their preference, gameplay settings such as display build grid, show all unit health bars, etc)? Will the machines they are playing the game on be able to handle SC2 properly?
When I say properly, I mean does *not* dip under 60fps. Video lag can cause players to screw up their micro, and consquently lose. Losing because of bad tournament machines is always extremely disappointing.
On August 04 2010 06:33 Lz wrote: #2. in the general rules makes me worry t.t
I'll c/p what Lee said in the other thread (because I'm not about to type all that out again!)
Okay, let me try to clear the air on this. It's been a long standing policy at MLG and one that we've had to address with the WoW teams and their sponsors as well.
MLG is a business. Our business happens to be one that we love because it's all about competitive gaming. But a big part of that business is being good partners with our sponsors. We invest a tremendous amount of work, time and money into producing the best tournaments we know how at the biggest scale that we can. Your objections are assuming that we have no interest or smarts enough to try to protect our business. That seems just silly.
Here's the reality, we're NOT saying you can't compete at all if you have a sponsor that conflicts with MLG's sponsors. Most of the folks that have sponsorships already have their own websites and mechanisms to promote--on which they can splash all over the place that they won MLG or placed well, or whatever. All we're saying is that on OUR stream, please respect our business.
Check the WoW VODs. Tell me where we were so bad. You'll see Fnatic shirts, eG shirts, coL shirts and lots of others.
If there's conflict, we're just reserving the right to protect the investment and effort we make to throw tournaments like this. - MLG Lee
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
Starcraft is not a game where players press 5 keys at once.
no 2. on the general rules one is the only one that concerns me really. More the 'being asked to wear MLG stuff' than the other part. Surely having players kitted out in their respective team equipment brings a more professional air to the show than making everyone wear the same standard edition MLG stuff.
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
Starcraft is not a game where players press 5 keys at once.
It most certainly could be. Why is rebooting such an issue?
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
PS2 hardware, when repeatedly plugged in and out (like over the course of the tournament day) will also short out the motherboard resulting in dead tournament PCs. That's why this rule is in place.
On August 04 2010 06:40 Senx wrote: It's a shame you didn't take the opportunity to use some of the more balance maps, ex SC:BW remakes for example.
No ones saying these maps are set in stone for future events, but at the moment the map-making scene is so new that we didn't want to adopt any new maps and stick only with the Blizzard ones.
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
PS2 hardware, when repeatedly plugged in and out (like over the course of the tournament day) will also short out the motherboard resulting in dead tournament PCs. That's why this rule is in place.
I have no problem with the rules. MLG has is also a business and if one of their sponsors is Coke than I completely understand them asking a team with a Pepsi logo to wear something else.
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
Starcraft is not a game where players press 5 keys at once.
Yes it is. High APM players will suffer from this if they're used to a keyboard with proper rollover.
There are some USB keyboards that do offer a high amount of multiple keypresses afaik. but they're 1) Expensive as fuck 2) Not as good as mechanical PS2 keyboards. If it truly does kill motherboards then I can definitely understand MLG not wanting to use them but it's still a shame.
On August 04 2010 06:43 kzn wrote: It most certainly could be. Why is rebooting such an issue?
Time constraints, hardware and software configurations being lost, changed or overwritten, etc is my guess.
And I can't think of any scenario where I'd be pressing enough keys to butcher my n-key rollover. I play on an abs m1, which doesn't have n-key rollover and I've certainly never had a problem in SC. (I have however in cod4 where i need to press W+E+D+2 simultaneously :< )
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
Starcraft is not a game where players press 5 keys at once.
Yes it is. High APM players will suffer from this.
There are some USB keyboards that do offer a high amount of multiple keypresses afaik. but they're 1) Expensive as fuck 2) Not as good as mechanical PS2 keyboards. If it truly does kill motherboards then I can definitely understand MLG not wanting to use them but it's still a shame.
I agree, however usb should be fine. 300apm is 5 actions per second which is average 200ms between actions. A standard 500hz polling rate USB port will poll every 2ms, which is plenty enough time to catch each action as it comes in.
16. If all Minerals on the Map have been consumed and no Units or Structures have been killed for 5 minutes, the Game will be replayed.
This one worries me a little. If Terran against anyone gets into a base race, and only has a barracks left - the other person with the majority of their ground-based army running around but unable to build new stuff - the Terran can force a rematch despite being unable to make a realistic comeback?
I'd probably look into making it a situational thing. I just imagine it'll be very annoying for the person who couldn't snipe the barracks, as they'd no doubt feel they'd won, while the Terran was just scraping a draw.
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
Use a ps/2 to usb cable if you have a keyboard that doesn't have a usb connector. $5 brings your old keyboard into line with the rule.
Looking pretty good, but if you didn't want to use 'experimental' maps you should have just used brood war ports - they play really well in sc2 it turns out. The maps you have now are, well, bad.
As browder said in an interview, ladder maps aren't supposed to be used in tournaments... they're not designed for it.
On August 04 2010 06:43 kzn wrote: It most certainly could be. Why is rebooting such an issue?
Time constraints, hardware and software configurations being lost, changed or overwritten, etc is my guess.
And I can't think of any scenario where I'd be pressing enough keys to butcher my n-key rollover. I play on an abs m1, which doesn't have n-key rollover and I've certainly never had a problem in SC. (I have however in cod4 where i need to press W+E+D+2 simultaneously :< )
I suppose it depends on what a keyboard defines as simultaneous. You can certainly hit 5 different keys extremely rapidly in certain situations.
I can think of a couple off the top of my head but I'm not entirely sure how rollover works with alt/shift/ctrl and space so I don't know if cheaper keyboards would actually fail in those situations.
Use a ps/2 to usb cable if you have a keyboard that doesn't have a usb connector. $5 brings your old keyboard into line with the rule.
And removes n-key rollover capability, which is the entire point of using PS/2.
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
Use a ps/2 to usb cable if you have a keyboard that doesn't have a usb connector. $5 brings your old keyboard into line with the rule.
Using the USB port kills the proper n-key rollover because the USB is limited, fortunately in SC2 there's no actions that always require 5 keys but it's rather something you just need to get used to not doing. It shouldn't be too much of a problem.
On August 04 2010 06:43 kzn wrote: It most certainly could be. Why is rebooting such an issue?
Time constraints, hardware and software configurations being lost, changed or overwritten, etc is my guess.
And I can't think of any scenario where I'd be pressing enough keys to butcher my n-key rollover. I play on an abs m1, which doesn't have n-key rollover and I've certainly never had a problem in SC. (I have however in cod4 where i need to press W+E+D+2 simultaneously :< )
You nailed it. Constantly rebooting the machine will interrupt tournament flow. We tried this with WoW (requiring reboots for PS2 gear) but players forget. We had 2 Blackbirds die in one tournament from the same person because of this, and lost 3 total in that one event. Changing a mobo at an event is NOT fun. And we can only stock so many spare full computers.
Sorry guys, I know this one is an issue, but replacing gear gets expensive. There's FIVE tractor trailers of gear that travels around the US with the MLG Pro Circuit. And they're jammed to the gills. We have to deal with logistics issues here that rival SC2 Macro ;p
On August 04 2010 06:50 MLG_Lee wrote: We tried this with WoW (requiring reboots for PS2 gear) but players forget. We had 2 Blackbirds die in one tournament from the same person because of this, and lost 3 total in that one event.
On August 04 2010 06:55 unit wrote: why no usb headsets? only 2-4 usb ports?
USB headsets need to have the sound device in windows changed to point to that device, and changed back when the device is removed. You'd be surprised how little people actually know that, and wouldn't you be pissed if you fired your game up only to realise that there's no sound and have nobody around to tell you why?
EDIT: to elaborate, when you change the device all software running needs to be restarted or pointed to that device, and when you remove the device the software (SC2) that's still running willr emain pointed to that device.
I'm not a great player but if I was there is something I would need clarification about, so it might be useful to answer this anyway.
In the beta I extensively customized my hotkeys, which required modification of the GameStrings.txt file, would a player be allowed to use hotkeys customized in this fashion?
On August 04 2010 06:55 unit wrote: why no usb headsets? only 2-4 usb ports?
edit: and since your on the east coast have you considered dropping by the DC area and throwing another tourney there? ^___^
We use a standard audio set up to pass sound from your microphone to our broadcast desk. This is mostly for WoW, so we can broadcast team chat in our "Listen In" segments, but we're using the same hardware.
We've also had some driver conflicts with USB headsets (there are some amazingly cheap ones out there). Using our audio 3.5mini jacks means we can standardize driver images and reduce points of failure and issues along the way.
And what prodiG said. Changing audio settings is cumbersome to tournament flow.
Are you going to like, have refs pick the races, start the game, turn off the monitor, and then tell the players when they can turn them back on or wtf?
On August 04 2010 06:58 Kantom wrote: I'm not a great player but if I was there is something I would need clarification about, so it might be useful to answer this anyway.
In the beta I extensively customized my hotkeys, which required modification of the GameStrings.txt file, would a player be allowed to use hotkeys customized in this fashion?
On August 04 2010 06:58 Kantom wrote: I'm not a great player but if I was there is something I would need clarification about, so it might be useful to answer this anyway.
In the beta I extensively customized my hotkeys, which required modification of the GameStrings.txt file, would a player be allowed to use hotkeys customized in this fashion?
No.
I'll just point out this is fairly inconsistent if you allow people to choose between grid/normal/whatever else hotkey setups but I suppose not a big issue since the grid/normal setups are so good anyway.
[edit] Barring logistics concerns, at least. I can see that modified game files might be a bit retarded to deal with in a tournament setting.
On August 04 2010 06:58 Kantom wrote: I'm not a great player but if I was there is something I would need clarification about, so it might be useful to answer this anyway.
In the beta I extensively customized my hotkeys, which required modification of the GameStrings.txt file, would a player be allowed to use hotkeys customized in this fashion?
No.
Thank god. I believe this is an extremely good choice even disregarding that it helps the tournament flow when people don't have to constantly switch the hotkeys around.
In the rules it states that the interface the players must use has to be the default one, am I correct in thinking that we are still allowed to fiddle with the graphics etc. settings (like display build grid) in the ingame settings menus or do these count as interface?
On August 04 2010 06:58 Kantom wrote: I'm not a great player but if I was there is something I would need clarification about, so it might be useful to answer this anyway.
In the beta I extensively customized my hotkeys, which required modification of the GameStrings.txt file, would a player be allowed to use hotkeys customized in this fashion?
No.
I'll just point out this is fairly inconsistent if you allow people to choose between grid/normal/whatever else hotkey setups but I suppose not a big issue since the grid/normal setups are so good anyway.
[edit] Barring logistics concerns, at least. I can see that modified game files might be a bit retarded to deal with in a tournament setting.
I won't disagree with that, but we have to consider normalizing these rules and drawing a line in the sand for it. In a tournament setting, trying to get 32 players through a double elim bracket, best of 3, in about 14hrs of tournament play... that's rough.
One thing you'll notice is that MLG tries to run on schedule. As much as we love this, doing a tournament for MLG is a 7 day trip. It takes us 2.5 days to build the venue, 3 days of show and one day to tear it all down. By midnight on Friday, we're all already pretty fried. We'll stay late if we have to, but we try to plan and organize so that we don't need to.
On August 04 2010 07:05 MLG_Lee wrote: I won't disagree with that, but we have to consider normalizing these rules and drawing a line in the sand for it. In a tournament setting, trying to get 32 players through a double elim bracket, best of 3, in about 14hrs of tournament play... that's rough.
Well, that depends on the number of computers you have available for it. Obviously if you had 32 it would be pretty easy, even with PS/2 hardware, but I suppose thats too much to hope for :d
On August 04 2010 06:58 Kantom wrote: I'm not a great player but if I was there is something I would need clarification about, so it might be useful to answer this anyway.
In the beta I extensively customized my hotkeys, which required modification of the GameStrings.txt file, would a player be allowed to use hotkeys customized in this fashion?
No.
Thank god. I believe this is an extremely good choice even disregarding that it helps the tournament flow when people don't have to constantly switch the hotkeys around.
In the rules it states that the interface the players must use has to be the default one, am I correct in thinking that we are still allowed to fiddle with the graphics etc. settings (like display build grid) in the ingame settings menus or do these count as interface?
The rules actually also state that you can't mess with audio or video settings. We may revise this, but for now that ruling stands.
"7. Players may not change the Computer/Monitor sound and video settings."
How does that one work? is it ingame video settings or the windows settings? if it's the ingame i bet it may annoy alot of people if they play with shaders on low and if want to force high or other way around
Ew. Cant switch hotkeys/video/audio settings? Must use USB? Though the second rule is the real bite in the ass when attempting to gain sponsors for their respective team (If im not mistaken, wernt H2 teams allowed to wear their sponsor's uniforms?)
And whats with blind pick of races and only allowing the loser to switch? That is REALLY unnecessary IMO.
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
Use a ps/2 to usb cable if you have a keyboard that doesn't have a usb connector. $5 brings your old keyboard into line with the rule.
Using the USB port kills the proper n-key rollover because the USB is limited, fortunately in SC2 there's no actions that always require 5 keys but it's rather something you just need to get used to not doing. It shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Oh cry me a river that you cannot press more than 6 keys at once on the filco on usb. I don't think sc2 is that demanding to require more than 6 key presses over a usb converter.
Equipment 2. Headsets must utilize a standard 3.5mm stereo headset jack with a separate 3.5mm microphone jack. Players may not use USB headsets. 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
I mean I probably will never compete in any MLG event, but this is a big big deal. Many headsets utilize USB and, more importantly, some of the best keyboards still use the PS/2 interface. It isn't necessarily popular but it is still out there (and a better interface for keyboards than USB anyway). Is the use of a PS/2 to USB adapter allowed?
On August 04 2010 06:58 Kantom wrote: I'm not a great player but if I was there is something I would need clarification about, so it might be useful to answer this anyway.
In the beta I extensively customized my hotkeys, which required modification of the GameStrings.txt file, would a player be allowed to use hotkeys customized in this fashion?
No.
I'll just point out this is fairly inconsistent if you allow people to choose between grid/normal/whatever else hotkey setups but I suppose not a big issue since the grid/normal setups are so good anyway.
[edit] Barring logistics concerns, at least. I can see that modified game files might be a bit retarded to deal with in a tournament setting.
I'm not sure I understand how it's inconsistent. It would actually make less sense to me if they didn't allow grid/normal/classic hotkey setups, considering it's so easy to do through the menu options. Same with building grid. It's akin to switching sensitivity / inverting axis I think in FPSs imo.
Switching between a menu option and editing config files are quite different.
Still wondering how the blind race pick will actually work in practice.
I'm not sure I understand how it's inconsistent. It would actually make less sense to me if they didn't allow grid/normal/classic hotkey setups, considering it's so easy to do through the menu options. Same with building grid. It's akin to switching sensitivity / inverting axis I think in FPSs imo.
Switching between a menu option and editing config files are quite different.
It is inconsistent because the only reason for a player to choose between grid/normal/classic is if they feel it provides them with an advantage. If you arbitrarily limit the choices only to grid/normal/classic, you are forcing a disadvantage onto players who would be better off with some other setup.
Now, from the perspective of running a tournament, editing config files gets a bit silly, because then everyone has to make sure the config is right even if they don't actually need to edit it, which adds even more time, so I could understand a limitation placed on it for that reason - but if one is concerned purely with competitive balance, you either set one legitimate set of bindings, or you allow all possible sets.
[edit] Limiting it to grid/normal/classic is like saying you can only have mouse sens at 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5, basically.
I'm not sure I understand how it's inconsistent. It would actually make less sense to me if they didn't allow grid/normal/classic hotkey setups, considering it's so easy to do through the menu options. Same with building grid. It's akin to switching sensitivity / inverting axis I think in FPSs imo.
Switching between a menu option and editing config files are quite different.
It is inconsistent because the only reason for a player to choose between grid/normal/classic is if they feel it provides them with an advantage. If you arbitrarily limit the choices only to grid/normal/classic, you are forcing a disadvantage onto players who would be better off with some other setup.
Now, from the perspective of running a tournament, editing config files gets a bit silly, because then everyone has to make sure the config is right even if they don't actually need to edit it, which adds even more time, so I could understand a limitation placed on it for that reason - but if one is concerned purely with competitive balance, you either set one legitimate set of bindings, or you allow all possible sets.
On August 04 2010 07:14 kzn wrote: Still wondering how the blind race pick will actually work in practice.
I'm assuming you pick your race going in (ex: Lz v. Idra. Lz would pick T and IdrA would pick Z and they would tell the Refs secretly, not knowing what the other person chose.), and whoever loses can change (ex: Lz loses and switches to Protoss). You just have to state you race going into the match I'd assume.
edit: oops didn't notice JP's quote at the begining, regardless this is correct
On August 04 2010 07:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: Explained on page one. Read the thread.
No, its not. Read my question. Carefully.
are you thinking about the loading screen? I guess they'll have a custom-game loading screen (like the UMS maps have) and obviously you could easily have someone other than the actual player configure your race/colour before the game and then hand over the computer to the player with monitor turned off
On August 04 2010 07:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: Explained on page one. Read the thread.
No, its not. Read my question. Carefully.
It's a double-blind pick, i.e. they tell the judges what they're going to go and then the judges announce the races, and THEN they start the game.
This is my guess based on how they've done things with SSBM, etc. in the past. Thus players should be able to know which matchup they're playing before the game starts, but there won't be things like Ret playing TvZ to dodge ZvZ in the first match or so.
This is a bigger concern for fighting games and is probably just carryover for consistency.
On August 04 2010 07:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: Explained on page one. Read the thread.
No, its not. Read my question. Carefully.
You said you didn't know how blind pick would work specifically and it is explained on the first page by JP.
I said in practice.
And the first page response only explains (and only partially) what the intent of the rule is, to allay concerns of people being forced to play Random.
I'm wondering whether its intended to prevent players from knowing the opponent's race until they sit down, until they load in, until they scout, or something else - and in the case of the latter two options, how they actually plan to achieve it.
I'm not sure I agree with the blind picking, as it might lead to the first game always being cheesy as you can't pick a standard build until you know what race you're against, maybe.
On August 04 2010 07:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: Explained on page one. Read the thread.
No, its not. Read my question. Carefully.
You said you didn't know how blind pick would work specifically and it is explained on the first page by JP.
I said in practice.
And the first page response only explains (and only partially) what the intent of the rule is, to allay concerns of people being forced to play Random.
I'm wondering whether its intended to prevent players from knowing the opponent's race until they sit down, until they load in, until they scout, or something else - and in the case of the latter two options, how they actually plan to achieve it.
It's basically there to make racepicking impossible. It has no further meaning as far as I understand the rule, obviously they aren't going to hide the race from the other player until he scouts, that would be ridiculous.
On August 04 2010 07:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: Explained on page one. Read the thread.
No, its not. Read my question. Carefully.
You said you didn't know how blind pick would work specifically and it is explained on the first page by JP.
I said in practice.
And the first page response only explains (and only partially) what the intent of the rule is, to allay concerns of people being forced to play Random.
I'm wondering whether its intended to prevent players from knowing the opponent's race until they sit down, until they load in, until they scout, or something else - and in the case of the latter two options, how they actually plan to achieve it.
MLG knows what they're doing, it's not going be like like you're going into the game without knowing the opponents race. You're picking without knowing, not starting the game without knowing.
What happens if, after all the resources on the map have been depleted, a terran player is able to take out the opposing players air army, and then proceeds to lose everything, except one flying barracks, to the opponents large ground army. Although this does seem unlikely, it has happened to me and it seems unfair if a terran could scrap an undeserved tie by doing this.
I think there needs to be some rule in place that if all the resources are gone, one player has no army, and the other players army is unable to reach the remaining buildings, the player with an army left is declared the winner.
for example: ZvT After a long game of turtling, all of the resources on the map have been depleted. The two remaining armies clash, and the zerg ends up killing all of the terrans units with its last two zerglings. However the terran has a remaining starport (yet no minerals) on an island expo. The zerg player is unnable to do anything to destroy the starport, even though the zerg clearly has dominance over the entire map. Note that a zerg or protoss could also get a building into a possition where it could potentially be unreachable.
Once again, I realise that this is unlikely, but it has happened to me, and I would hate to see someone robbed of a win.
On August 04 2010 07:25 Qikz wrote: I'm not sure I agree with the blind picking, as it might lead to the first game always being cheesy as you can't pick a standard build until you know what race you're against, maybe.
I think it will make for much more interesting games, where players like TLO could surprise you with a zerg 1st pick, but then notice if he won that game with zerg he'd have to stick to zerg for the next game so just randomly picking an off race to cheese (proxy 2gate or some shit from a terran picking toss) would not be worth it
What happens if, after all the resources on the map have been depleted, a terran player is able to take out the opposing players air army, and then proceeds to lose everything, except one flying barracks, to the opponents large ground army. Although this does seem unlikely, it has happened to me and it seems unfair if a terran could scrap an undeserved tie by doing this.
I think there needs to be some rule in place that if all the resources are gone, one player has no army, and the other players army is unable to reach the remaining buildings, the player with an army left is declared the winner.
for example: ZvT After a long game of turtling, all of the resources on the map have been depleted. The two remaining armies clash, and the zerg ends up killing all of the terrans units with its last two zerglings. However the terran has a remaining starport (yet no minerals) on an island expo. The zerg player is unnable to do anything to destroy the starport, even though the zerg clearly has dominance over the entire map. Note that a zerg or protoss could also get a building into a possition where it could potentially be unreachable.
Once again, I realise that this is unlikely, but it has happened to me, and I would hate to see someone robbed of a win.
The games rules are simple; destroy your opponents buildings to win. If you aren't able to do so you aren't the winner, it doesn't matter if you've been dominating earlier, you're tied now.
On August 04 2010 07:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: Explained on page one. Read the thread.
No, its not. Read my question. Carefully.
You said you didn't know how blind pick would work specifically and it is explained on the first page by JP.
I said in practice.
And the first page response only explains (and only partially) what the intent of the rule is, to allay concerns of people being forced to play Random.
I'm wondering whether its intended to prevent players from knowing the opponent's race until they sit down, until they load in, until they scout, or something else - and in the case of the latter two options, how they actually plan to achieve it.
On August 04 2010 07:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: Explained on page one. Read the thread.
No, its not. Read my question. Carefully.
are you thinking about the loading screen? I guess they'll have a custom-game loading screen (like the UMS maps have) and obviously you could easily have someone other than the actual player configure your race/colour before the game and then hand over the computer to the player with monitor turned off
On August 04 2010 07:14 kzn wrote: Now, from the perspective of running a tournament, editing config files gets a bit silly, because then everyone has to make sure the config is right even if they don't actually need to edit it, which adds even more time, so I could understand a limitation placed on it for that reason - but if one is concerned purely with competitive balance, you either set one legitimate set of bindings, or you allow all possible sets.
[edit] Limiting it to grid/normal/classic is like saying you can only have mouse sens at 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5, basically.
That's not the best analogy, given the nature of editing MPQ files. The thing is, if you let someone open the MPQs to change their hotkeys, you run the risk of someone abusing that right and say, changing a texture to make certain units more visible or something. Enforcement is just way easier when all you have to do to ensure no foul play is going on is to copy a clean version of the MPQ, rather than having to check the integrity of all the other game assets contained in the file.
Player a) tells the ref he is Zerg. Player b) tells the ref he is Terran.
They make the game on the scheduled map.
Player a) selects Zerg. Player b) selects Terran.
The game starts.
You won't go okay the brackets have these maps and my opponent is this race throughout. Of course if it is say Whitera vs Idra you know it is going to be P v Z all the time.
On August 04 2010 07:14 kzn wrote: Now, from the perspective of running a tournament, editing config files gets a bit silly, because then everyone has to make sure the config is right even if they don't actually need to edit it, which adds even more time, so I could understand a limitation placed on it for that reason - but if one is concerned purely with competitive balance, you either set one legitimate set of bindings, or you allow all possible sets.
[edit] Limiting it to grid/normal/classic is like saying you can only have mouse sens at 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5, basically.
That's not the best analogy, given the nature of editing MPQ files. The thing is, if you let someone open the MPQs to change their hotkeys, you run the risk of someone abusing that right and say, changing a texture to make certain units more visible or something. Enforcement is just way easier when all you have to do to ensure no foul play is going on is to copy a clean version of the MPQ, rather than having to check the integrity of all the other game assets contained in the file.
Well yes but thats a tournament concern. If you're purely concerned with competitive balance you're not looking at difficulty of enforcement, you're looking at competitive balance. That was all I was saying.
On August 04 2010 07:30 Kralic wrote: Really people are worried about a blind pick?
Player a) tells the ref he is Zerg. Player b) tells the ref he is Terran.
They make the game on the scheduled map.
Player a) selects Zerg. Player b) selects Terran.
The game starts.
You won't go okay the brackets have these maps and my opponent is this race throughout. Of course if it is say Whitera vs Idra you know it is going to be P v Z all the time.
I think the issue is that lots of us are accustomed to players selecting 1 race for the entire tournament before the event, and not being allowed to change. Racepicking is something a lot of us haven't seen in a while, so the rules to ensure that it's fair are unfamiliar to us.
On August 04 2010 07:14 kzn wrote: Now, from the perspective of running a tournament, editing config files gets a bit silly, because then everyone has to make sure the config is right even if they don't actually need to edit it, which adds even more time, so I could understand a limitation placed on it for that reason - but if one is concerned purely with competitive balance, you either set one legitimate set of bindings, or you allow all possible sets.
[edit] Limiting it to grid/normal/classic is like saying you can only have mouse sens at 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5, basically.
That's not the best analogy, given the nature of editing MPQ files. The thing is, if you let someone open the MPQs to change their hotkeys, you run the risk of someone abusing that right and say, changing a texture to make certain units more visible or something. Enforcement is just way easier when all you have to do to ensure no foul play is going on is to copy a clean version of the MPQ, rather than having to check the integrity of all the other game assets contained in the file.
Well yes but thats a tournament concern. If you're purely concerned with competitive balance you're not looking at difficulty of enforcement, you're looking at competitive balance. That was all I was saying.
Well I mean, preventing people from cheating sort of factors into "balance".
Blind pick is intended to force you to pick w/o knowing what your opponent is playing for the FIRST match. Players tell the Refs what they're going to play. In the Lobby, they pick their races. Not picking the race that you told the ref results in a technical foul. You start the match knowing what your opponent is playing, but you pick your race for the match not knowing.
Locking in races in subsequent games of the series means you don't get to throw a cheese strat in the first one (unless you can play that race well enough to win out).
Hopefully that clears it up. Thanks for the healthy debate here, folks, we're definitely open to feedback on our rules and have a history of listening to the community. We have actually thought about this though, so if you see something that you think is really stupid, odds are we have a reason for it.
If it is just an oversight on our part, well... then you get to call me stupid. But only until I fix it. At which point, you're stupid if you keep calling me stupid, etc, etc, etc.
On August 04 2010 06:33 Lz wrote: #2. in the general rules makes me worry t.t
Are you sponsored by a competitor of doritos, hot pockets or dr. pepper?
That's not the point. What if MLG adds AMD as a sponsor at some point, then players sponsored by Intel wouldn't be able to wear their colors and get a sponsored trip to the event. Same applies to any current or future sponsor of any pro gaming team or player.
This rule will mean trouble sooner or later, to no ones benefit.
On August 04 2010 06:33 Lz wrote: #2. in the general rules makes me worry t.t
Are you sponsored by a competitor of doritos, hot pockets or dr. pepper?
That's not the point. What if MLG adds AMD as a sponsor at some point, then players sponsored by Intel wouldn't be able to wear their colors and get a sponsored trip to the event. Same applies to any current or future sponsor of any pro gaming team or player.
This rule will mean trouble sooner or later, to no ones benefit.
If it's potentially troublesome, it would have come up as an issue in relation to MLG's other events already. As it stands, I'm inclined to believe that since it hasn't been an issue for other games, it shouldn't be an issue now.
On August 04 2010 07:14 kzn wrote: Now, from the perspective of running a tournament, editing config files gets a bit silly, because then everyone has to make sure the config is right even if they don't actually need to edit it, which adds even more time, so I could understand a limitation placed on it for that reason - but if one is concerned purely with competitive balance, you either set one legitimate set of bindings, or you allow all possible sets.
[edit] Limiting it to grid/normal/classic is like saying you can only have mouse sens at 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5, basically.
That's not the best analogy, given the nature of editing MPQ files. The thing is, if you let someone open the MPQs to change their hotkeys, you run the risk of someone abusing that right and say, changing a texture to make certain units more visible or something. Enforcement is just way easier when all you have to do to ensure no foul play is going on is to copy a clean version of the MPQ, rather than having to check the integrity of all the other game assets contained in the file.
Well yes but thats a tournament concern. If you're purely concerned with competitive balance you're not looking at difficulty of enforcement, you're looking at competitive balance. That was all I was saying.
I'm not sure I really understand how only allowing settings that blizzard put in the game outside of the realm of competitive balance. What game allows you to edit files outside of the game for competitive play?
On August 04 2010 07:14 kzn wrote: Now, from the perspective of running a tournament, editing config files gets a bit silly, because then everyone has to make sure the config is right even if they don't actually need to edit it, which adds even more time, so I could understand a limitation placed on it for that reason - but if one is concerned purely with competitive balance, you either set one legitimate set of bindings, or you allow all possible sets.
[edit] Limiting it to grid/normal/classic is like saying you can only have mouse sens at 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5, basically.
That's not the best analogy, given the nature of editing MPQ files. The thing is, if you let someone open the MPQs to change their hotkeys, you run the risk of someone abusing that right and say, changing a texture to make certain units more visible or something. Enforcement is just way easier when all you have to do to ensure no foul play is going on is to copy a clean version of the MPQ, rather than having to check the integrity of all the other game assets contained in the file.
Well yes but thats a tournament concern. If you're purely concerned with competitive balance you're not looking at difficulty of enforcement, you're looking at competitive balance. That was all I was saying.
I'm not sure I really understand how only allowing settings that blizzard put in the game outside of the realm of competitive balance. What game allows you to edit files outside of the game for competitive play? I can't think of one.
Pretty sure you can bring your own autoexec.cfg to cs tournaments. There's no difference, as far as competitive balance is concerned, between editing settings within the game or editing the relevant files outside of the game.
I'd like reiterate that broodwar maps are not 'risky', they're tried and true and the perfect choice over awful ladder maps. Even blizzard doesn't want tournaments to use the ladder maps, please please don't.
On August 04 2010 07:14 kzn wrote: Now, from the perspective of running a tournament, editing config files gets a bit silly, because then everyone has to make sure the config is right even if they don't actually need to edit it, which adds even more time, so I could understand a limitation placed on it for that reason - but if one is concerned purely with competitive balance, you either set one legitimate set of bindings, or you allow all possible sets.
[edit] Limiting it to grid/normal/classic is like saying you can only have mouse sens at 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5, basically.
That's not the best analogy, given the nature of editing MPQ files. The thing is, if you let someone open the MPQs to change their hotkeys, you run the risk of someone abusing that right and say, changing a texture to make certain units more visible or something. Enforcement is just way easier when all you have to do to ensure no foul play is going on is to copy a clean version of the MPQ, rather than having to check the integrity of all the other game assets contained in the file.
Well yes but thats a tournament concern. If you're purely concerned with competitive balance you're not looking at difficulty of enforcement, you're looking at competitive balance. That was all I was saying.
I'm not sure I really understand how only allowing settings that blizzard put in the game outside of the realm of competitive balance. What game allows you to edit files outside of the game for competitive play? I can't think of one.
Practically every pc fps... I can't imagine the outcry if quake players couldn't use their own configs at lans. The game is hardly even playable at a high level with some settings that you can't change using the menus.
On August 04 2010 07:14 kzn wrote: Now, from the perspective of running a tournament, editing config files gets a bit silly, because then everyone has to make sure the config is right even if they don't actually need to edit it, which adds even more time, so I could understand a limitation placed on it for that reason - but if one is concerned purely with competitive balance, you either set one legitimate set of bindings, or you allow all possible sets.
[edit] Limiting it to grid/normal/classic is like saying you can only have mouse sens at 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5, basically.
That's not the best analogy, given the nature of editing MPQ files. The thing is, if you let someone open the MPQs to change their hotkeys, you run the risk of someone abusing that right and say, changing a texture to make certain units more visible or something. Enforcement is just way easier when all you have to do to ensure no foul play is going on is to copy a clean version of the MPQ, rather than having to check the integrity of all the other game assets contained in the file.
Well yes but thats a tournament concern. If you're purely concerned with competitive balance you're not looking at difficulty of enforcement, you're looking at competitive balance. That was all I was saying.
I'm not sure I really understand how only allowing settings that blizzard put in the game outside of the realm of competitive balance. What game allows you to edit files outside of the game for competitive play? I can't think of one.
I can think of one, Warcraft 3.
The only difference is the file, which really functions almost identically to War3, is stored in an MPQ archive now.
On August 04 2010 06:33 Lz wrote: #2. in the general rules makes me worry t.t
Are you sponsored by a competitor of doritos, hot pockets or dr. pepper?
That's not the point. What if MLG adds AMD as a sponsor at some point, then players sponsored by Intel wouldn't be able to wear their colors and get a sponsored trip to the event. Same applies to any current or future sponsor of any pro gaming team or player.
This rule will mean trouble sooner or later, to no ones benefit.
If it's potentially troublesome, it would have come up as an issue in relation to MLG's other events already. As it stands, I'm inclined to believe that since it hasn't been an issue for other games, it shouldn't be an issue now.
MLG hasn't featured games that have a significant competitive presence outside the organization before, SC2 is a whole new scenario.
On August 04 2010 06:28 itmeJP wrote: 3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Why the fuck?
PS/2 Hardware needs to have the machine rebooted after plugging it in.
Given that you cannot achieve n-key rollover with USB equipment I'd say thats a small price to pay compared to forcing players to use equipment in a suboptimal fashion.
PS2 hardware, when repeatedly plugged in and out (like over the course of the tournament day) will also short out the motherboard resulting in dead tournament PCs. That's why this rule is in place.
are you allowed to use a ps2<->usb adapter for a ps2 keyboard?
On August 04 2010 07:39 Mannerheim wrote: MLG hasn't featured games that have a significant competitive presence outside the organization before, SC2 is a whole new scenario.
You could (I would) argue for SSBM. Granted, it certainly wasn't as big before MLG, but it was definitely around before MLG picked it up.
On August 04 2010 07:33 MLG_Lee wrote: Blind pick is intended to force you to pick w/o knowing what your opponent is playing for the FIRST match. Players tell the Refs what they're going to play. In the Lobby, they pick their races. Not picking the race that you told the ref results in a technical foul. You start the match knowing what your opponent is playing, but you pick your race for the match not knowing.
Locking in races in subsequent games of the series means you don't get to throw a cheese strat in the first one (unless you can play that race well enough to win out).
Hopefully that clears it up. Thanks for the healthy debate here, folks, we're definitely open to feedback on our rules and have a history of listening to the community. We have actually thought about this though, so if you see something that you think is really stupid, odds are we have a reason for it.
If it is just an oversight on our part, well... then you get to call me stupid. But only until I fix it. At which point, you're stupid if you keep calling me stupid, etc, etc, etc.
I'd be mortified if let's say Bisu decided to play terran or zerg for a round in a future OSL. Just me.
Lee what monitors will players be using? Also I'm assuming there is no restriction on in-game names allowed? (Mainly referring to sponsor names)
Also I would strongly urge the reconsideration of the video settings enforcement. Things like foilage and some unit animations interfere with vision and micro. (i.e. Nexus and mothership deaths)
I'm surprised Kulas Ravine is in the map pool. Doesn't that map favor towards the race that isn't Zerg because of all the chokes, cliffs and limited space?
On August 04 2010 07:52 Agh wrote: Lee what monitors will players be using? Also I'm assuming there is no restriction on in-game names allowed? (Mainly referring to sponsor names)
Also I would strongly urge the reconsideration of the video settings enforcement. Things like foilage and some unit animations interfere with vision and micro. (i.e. Nexus and mothership deaths)
HP 20" 2ms LCDs. 1680x1040 max res.
Video settings will not be changeable by the player, but we're evaluating a default setting for all comps which will ensure that things like foliage etc aren't interfering with gameplay.
i wonder why the Headset can't be USB... i guess this means the SC2 Razer Banshee headset is out of the questions... specifically designed for SC2 MY ASS lol
On August 04 2010 07:03 Puosu wrote: In the rules it states that the interface the players must use has to be the default one, am I correct in thinking that we are still allowed to fiddle with the graphics etc. settings (like display build grid) in the ingame settings menus or do these count as interface?
The rules actually also state that you can't mess with audio or video settings. We may revise this, but for now that ruling stands.
The game looks significantly different depending on how the graphics level set on a player's machine. In addition, some players do not play with SC2 music on normally, and would need to get used to that in the background.
Will the exact graphics and audio settings be released if we are sadly not allowed to change them?
Lastly, as the specifications on what is allowed in terms of hardware is quite specific, I thought I'd ask this. I use a 3.5mm audio splitter (specifically, this one) to allow myself to both listen to a mp3 player and the game's sound effects at the same time. I had figured that this would be fine for SC2 tournaments as I do not install anything, it is small, and it uses the same headphone connector.... would this be allowed, or does it specifically have to be the headphones directly connected to the 3.5mm jack? Might not make a difference depending on how high the music in the game is set from above, but thought I'd ask.
Man this is so sick, I got my hotel too and Its only me and Roboferret right now. If ppl want in shoot me a PM Im willing to have as many splitting the room as can sleep on the floor in their sleeping bags.
I'm one of the unknowns that got in. I'm sorry some of yall didn't get in, but I'll do my best to give you guys a good show.
I would totally support a closed invite/buy in for established players. I hope they keep doing open tournaments though; this kind of thing is an opportunity for guys like me who are outside of the current pro-gaming community to try to get a foot in the door.
"Players may not use USB headsets." - No reason why this should be true if the MLG game machines are sufficient to run the SC2 software. So many players use USB headsets. This seems unnecessary...
"Players may not change the Computer/Monitor sound and video settings." -What if somebody had some sort of disability...maybe they needed a brighter monitor setting, or maybe they were colorblind as to a certain shade and needed different "warmth" settings on the monitor (you'll know what I'm talking about if you check your monitor settings)...this seems discriminatory if exceptions could not be made for this kind of thing. Let's face it, gamers are not known to have the best vision.....
Also, I would never fucking play with the SC2 music on full 100%, or "ambient sounds" enabled. I don't want to hear terrible zerg music or cars cruising by honking their horns on Metalopolis. Hell, I'm ADHD and the music and ambient sounds are SERIOUSLY distracting from my gameplay. I'm sure I'm not the only one, either. I would be pressing CTRL+M in match, and if MLG were to disqualify me for that, I see them having some issue, perhaps being the next KeSPA "ppp" incident.
"Players and Coaches may be asked to wear MLG apparel for all Matches." Only if we get to keep the apparel. Otherwise, absolutely not. Nobody has the right to tell me what to wear, this isn't fucking boarding school. I can understand asking people not to wear non-approved sponsor clothing, but asking somebody to wear MLG insignia without actually sponsoring that player through MLG themselves is unacceptable. Also, I will never wear some sweaty ass, grungy, nasty gamer gear that has been worn hundreds of sweaty pale nerds before me. I SWEAT. I wouldn't want anybody else to wear my gear either, I don't care if it's been washed...hygiene people.. So, not a problem if it's free gear. Is a problem if it isn't.
^ That is my serious reaction to being asked to wear MLG apparel if it is not GIVEN away free/re-used gamer gear
Also...no Scrap Station? Why not???
Besides these things, the rules seem pretty solid, however the issues I cited above seem like pretty major ones to me (except the USB headsets, which seems unnecessary but minor...the other two things seem like major issues to me though.)
Also, this:
On August 04 2010 08:17 Kennigit wrote: So maybe its time to have a closed invite/buy in for good players MLG?
On August 04 2010 07:03 Puosu wrote: In the rules it states that the interface the players must use has to be the default one, am I correct in thinking that we are still allowed to fiddle with the graphics etc. settings (like display build grid) in the ingame settings menus or do these count as interface?
The rules actually also state that you can't mess with audio or video settings. We may revise this, but for now that ruling stands.
You're kidding, you have to play with default graphics, hit point bars, music on, etc? That's just... stupid.
im confused, what does it mean if its open registration 32 players? like first 32 random people to sign up? how is that a 'pro' tournament? am I missing something here? As a spectator, that does not sound all that exciting to watch a tournament of some random 32 people who happened to sign up first?
I'm sorry if it's been addressed but rule #2 under "gameplay".
.. how many refs are there going to be?
If your mouse or keyboard suddenly stops working, you can't pause the game? You have to yell "i need a ref over here" and wait for them to come over while your opponent destroys you?
(oh, i see that you just get a warning. much better then, i suppose all is well )
On August 04 2010 08:25 kalendae wrote: im confused, what does it mean if its open registration 32 players? like first 32 random people to sign up? how is that a 'pro' tournament? am I missing something here? As a spectator, that does not sound all that exciting to watch a tournament of some random 32 people who happened to sign up first?
I agree with this, could be 31 bads and one pro who will just face roll the others.
On August 04 2010 08:25 kalendae wrote: im confused, what does it mean if its open registration 32 players? like first 32 random people to sign up? how is that a 'pro' tournament? am I missing something here? As a spectator, that does not sound all that exciting to watch a tournament of some random 32 people who happened to sign up first?
You're exactly right. It's pretty dumb considering how much money is on the line. There's a possibility that some bronze/silver player could walk away with 8th place and like $200 dollars. You have to have some invite slots in the future.
On August 04 2010 08:25 kalendae wrote: im confused, what does it mean if its open registration 32 players? like first 32 random people to sign up? how is that a 'pro' tournament? am I missing something here? As a spectator, that does not sound all that exciting to watch a tournament of some random 32 people who happened to sign up first?
I agree with this, could be 31 bads and one pro who will just face roll the others.
Or just 32 bads. And the guy who wins is just slightly less bad.
Obviously the format is flawed. As JP said in the other thread, though, we kind of need something like this to happen in order to show MLG management that this isn't going to work.
On August 04 2010 07:03 Puosu wrote: In the rules it states that the interface the players must use has to be the default one, am I correct in thinking that we are still allowed to fiddle with the graphics etc. settings (like display build grid) in the ingame settings menus or do these count as interface?
The rules actually also state that you can't mess with audio or video settings. We may revise this, but for now that ruling stands.
The game looks significantly different depending on how the graphics level set on a player's machine. In addition, some players do not play with SC2 music on normally, and would need to get used to that in the background.
.
Press CTRL+ M or CTRL + S for the music/sound, they won't catch you.
I am glad there are no invite slots. Future tournaments, if this works anything like the rest of MLGs tournaments, will have invites based on previous tournaments, (as well as an open bracket) and the national championship will be purely invites based on results over the season. The format is awesome and I think a purely open bracket this time is the best way to do it. 32 slots was clearly below demand, but they said if we showed them we wanted more slots, they'd do something about it, so stay hopeful :D
On August 04 2010 06:55 unit wrote: why no usb headsets? only 2-4 usb ports?
USB headsets need to have the sound device in windows changed to point to that device, and changed back when the device is removed. You'd be surprised how little people actually know that, and wouldn't you be pissed if you fired your game up only to realise that there's no sound and have nobody around to tell you why?
EDIT: to elaborate, when you change the device all software running needs to be restarted or pointed to that device, and when you remove the device the software (SC2) that's still running willr emain pointed to that device.
Found that out a few weeks ago, couldn't figure out why the fuck the headset I borrowed from a friend wasn't working. You have to change it back to speakers again afterwards, another thing I was unaware of.
Anyone have a roster of the players actually in? There's hardly anyone who's name I recognise who's in this.
BTW MLG, seriously this is going to be a fail tournament if you don't get the big names in this. Lz, HuK, Nony, etc. all the best NA players. This could be a big thing for esports in the U.S., and not having those guys... many of which are actual sponsored progamers not in it... seems stupid. No one wants to see a random smattering of players, many of which could be in gold league even.
On August 04 2010 08:25 kalendae wrote: im confused, what does it mean if its open registration 32 players? like first 32 random people to sign up? how is that a 'pro' tournament? am I missing something here? As a spectator, that does not sound all that exciting to watch a tournament of some random 32 people who happened to sign up first?
You're exactly right. It's pretty dumb considering how much money is on the line. There's a possibility that some bronze/silver player could walk away with 8th place and like $200 dollars. You have to have some invite slots in the future.
Hopefully they're just have a much larger number of slots. I would really hate to see a large number of slots to qualifying events be invite only.
I agree 100% with the last few comments, and I'm surprised there wasn't a "invite" aspect to ensure there's a talented pool of players participating.
What would happen if this happened for the Halo 3 aspect and you ended up with 32 twelve-year-old boys while Instinct/Triggers Down/etc were all unable to get in?
:S
I agree though you need some kind of open aspect to it, but maybe they could even consider a half invite/half open thing to still make sure the talent is there.
On August 04 2010 08:32 TheYango wrote: I don't see having an invitational aspect being the best way to do this, especially since these are qualifier events to begin with.
Perhaps an online qualifier portion, from which the top 32 are selected is the way to go?
On August 04 2010 08:32 TheYango wrote: I don't see having an invitational aspect being the best way to do this, especially since these are qualifier events to begin with.
Perhaps an online qualifier portion, from which the top 32 are selected is the way to go?
I'd agree with this.
At least it ensures that the players involved have talent and can at least provide an interesting event from the point of a spectator, rather then picking 32 people who were chosen purely on the fact they can purchase passes the fastest.
Honestly, I feel a little bad. My slot could be LZ's or HuK's or Nony's. I thought that those guys would have gotten some sort of invite ahead of time or something, and it would be 32 random folks like me + the established pro's.
But I don't feel that bad. I see this as an opportunity to get my foot in with the pro's, and I'll do my best to give you all a good series of games to watch. It shouldn't be too bad, I'm not some gold player or anything.
A qualifier sounds like a great way to do it. There has to be a system in place to allow new players a chance to prove their stuff, after all. I love watching our current crop of pros play, but there always has to be new blood coming in.
Yeah, I guess you guys are right about this event being a qualifier itself. But I just hope that in the future MLG can ensure that a majority of the top names that wants to participate can participate.
To everyone posting, please stay tuned, we're very aware (and have been for some time) that this was going to be an issue. There's a reason to our process which I'll be happy to talk about later, but for now, assume that we're working on it.
On August 04 2010 07:39 Mannerheim wrote: MLG hasn't featured games that have a significant competitive presence outside the organization before, SC2 is a whole new scenario.
SC2 might have the biggest they have done but your statement is flat out false. WoW, SSBB, tekken all are competitive outside of MLG. If anything the SC community has a big ego about how things are done in korea and if anyone changes anything they will somehow ruin it. Fact is you can't just copy and paste what happen in korea and expect it to work everywhere. Every organization is going to have their own restrictions and time to worry about.
On August 04 2010 07:03 Puosu wrote: In the rules it states that the interface the players must use has to be the default one, am I correct in thinking that we are still allowed to fiddle with the graphics etc. settings (like display build grid) in the ingame settings menus or do these count as interface?
The rules actually also state that you can't mess with audio or video settings. We may revise this, but for now that ruling stands.
The game looks significantly different depending on how the graphics level set on a player's machine. In addition, some players do not play with SC2 music on normally, and would need to get used to that in the background.
.
Press CTRL+ M or CTRL + S for the music/sound, they won't catch you.
Would be pretty lol if they did.
"You just turned the music off, I saw your hands! You're out!"
On August 04 2010 07:39 Mannerheim wrote: MLG hasn't featured games that have a significant competitive presence outside the organization before, SC2 is a whole new scenario.
SC2 might have the biggest they have done but your statement is flat out false. WoW, SSBB, tekken all are competitive outside of MLG. If anything the SC community has a big ego about how things are done in korea and if anyone changes anything they will somehow ruin it. Fact is you can't just copy and paste what happen in korea and expect it to work everywhere. Every organization is going to have their own restrictions and time to worry about.
To be fair, I think the Courage model of qualification for MSL/OSL prelims is a pretty good place to start as far as designing a qualification scheme.
On August 04 2010 07:52 Agh wrote: Lee what monitors will players be using? Also I'm assuming there is no restriction on in-game names allowed? (Mainly referring to sponsor names)
Also I would strongly urge the reconsideration of the video settings enforcement. Things like foilage and some unit animations interfere with vision and micro. (i.e. Nexus and mothership deaths)
HP 20" 2ms LCDs. 1680x1040 max res.
Video settings will not be changeable by the player, but we're evaluating a default setting for all comps which will ensure that things like foliage etc aren't interfering with gameplay.
On August 04 2010 08:37 MLG_Lee wrote: To everyone posting, please stay tuned, we're very aware (and have been for some time) that this was going to be an issue. There's a reason to our process which I'll be happy to talk about later, but for now, assume that we're working on it.
Nope, we don't like to assume.
Please keep us informed.
thank you!
-Your fans.
(seriously, I hate when people say "just assume x". We like feedback....................don't make things a huge mystery like Blizzard does >_< )
On August 04 2010 07:39 Mannerheim wrote: MLG hasn't featured games that have a significant competitive presence outside the organization before, SC2 is a whole new scenario.
SC2 might have the biggest they have done but your statement is flat out false. WoW, SSBB, tekken all are competitive outside of MLG. If anything the SC community has a big ego about how things are done in korea and if anyone changes anything they will somehow ruin it. Fact is you can't just copy and paste what happen in korea and expect it to work everywhere. Every organization is going to have their own restrictions and time to worry about.
To be fair, I think the Courage model of qualification for MSL/OSL prelims is a pretty good place to start as far as designing a qualification scheme.
You know what would be a really cool qualification scheme. The 32 people who pay the highest entry fee. The prize pool could reach exorbitant amounts and entire organizations would be backing players to make a huge pay day. Maybe a few rich people would show up for kicks. Awesome?
On August 04 2010 07:39 Mannerheim wrote: MLG hasn't featured games that have a significant competitive presence outside the organization before, SC2 is a whole new scenario.
SC2 might have the biggest they have done but your statement is flat out false. WoW, SSBB, tekken all are competitive outside of MLG. If anything the SC community has a big ego about how things are done in korea and if anyone changes anything they will somehow ruin it. Fact is you can't just copy and paste what happen in korea and expect it to work everywhere. Every organization is going to have their own restrictions and time to worry about.
To be fair, I think the Courage model of qualification for MSL/OSL prelims is a pretty good place to start as far as designing a qualification scheme.
You know what would be a really cool qualification scheme. The 32 people who pay the highest entry fee. The prize pool could reach exorbitant amounts and entire organizations would be backing players to make a huge pay day. Maybe a few rich people would show up for kicks. Awesome?
Yeah that format will really attract and keep fans who you need to show up to your tournaments, pay entry, spectate on your stream etc. Sounds more like a big gimmick to me.
Equipment 2. Headsets must utilize a standard 3.5mm stereo headset jack with a separate 3.5mm microphone jack. Players may not use USB headsets. 7. Players may not change the Computer/Monitor sound and video settings. 8. All User Interface setups will be confined to the Blizzard default options.
2. USB headsets are prevalent enough that this rule should probably be removed. PS/2 Mice are a similar issue, especially since many older mice are still used for SC. 7. I think this is a mistake. I assume things like sound/music are still adjustable (they need to be) but I think graphics should be as well. Similar to Counter Strike, there should be a default config for video settings to get maximum performance yet still maintain the useful features of higher level shaders and filters (such as forcefields, scans, stealth blur, etc.) If you keep the graphics settings higher than needed, you're handicapping people who can't play at such high settings at home.
You then make this config known ahead of time so that players will know what to use and will train accordingly. Given the large variance in graphics levels in SC2, being used to them does make a big difference.
8. Questionable. People use different button configs. It's probably not worth allowing full remapping, but I see no reason why players shouldn't be allowed to use the other key bind options that Blizzard provides.
General Rules 4. No Warm-Up Games may be played outside of scheduled Warm-Up periods.
4. Define warm up game? It's fine if players aren't allowed to practice against an opponent before their match, but they should still be allowed to enter games and practice their mechanics.
Gameplay 5. Prior to the start of a Best of 3 Game Match and the Blind Pick of Races, each Player may select one Map, from the list of Maps, that can’t be chosen for Games 2-3. The lower seeded Player will be given the opportunity to select a Map first. The higher seeded Player will then be given the opportunity to select a Map. 7. No Map may be played more than once in the same Best of 3 Game Match, Best of 7 Game Match, or in the Finals. 8. Referees will conduct a Blind Pick of Races for Game 1 of a Match. 9. The loser of a Game may select a different Race for the next Game. 10. Players who quit out of a Game before it has ended, without Referee’s permission, will lose the Game. 15. The higher seeded Player must play as the Red team and the lower seeded Player must play as the Blue team.
5. This is unfairly benefiting the lower seed. Especially in a game where players tilt much harder than Halo or CS, higher seed should have the map picking advantage. 7. I understand the desire to make the game feel more "diverse" but some maps are just better than others. Forcing players to play on shitty maps, especially in the Finals, is a terrible idea. Just make it so that the same map cannot be picked twice in a row. If the same sets of maps keep getting pulled over and over, then it's a sign that the maps you're offering aren't very good (aka all Blizzard maps), not that you should force players to play the other maps. 8. I don't know what to say about 8/9. EDIT: Read the clarification. These rules are kind of irrelevant, because BW/SC2 don't work this way. 10. I think this is unnecessary. Players should be allowed to quit at any time, losing the match. There should be some ethical standards enforced, such as no trash talking or no in-game chat, but don't enforce the way players 'gg'. 15. Why? SC2 is a very pretty game, but red and blue aren't. I assume the connection goes back to Halo but still, this serves no useful purpose and it makes the game uglier. In fact, it may actually detract from color blind players who have difficulty with red.
Maps
I'm not sure about the state of map design at the moment, but I'd suggest moving away from Blizzard maps as soon as possible.
EDIT: Your PCs probably died in WoW tournaments because they were HP pieces of shit. Countless Quake/CS tournaments still operate under those conditions and seem to do fine.
It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Its a bit embarrassing to back up MLG in one way and then the top NA americans can't even get into the event. I'm sure it will be worked out but why isn't this being done similar to WoW where basically the players are invited with a few 'random' people getting in.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Those who signed up and paid had the expectation that anyone could sign up, this includes top players even if as we stand now some did not get a pass.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Though I would still play if it got expanded, it seems kind of unfair to announce it as 32 and then just be like SURPRISE it's 256 now.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Though I would still play if it got expanded, it seems kind of unfair to announce it as 32 and then just be like SURPRISE it's 256 now.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
How is that UNFAIR? This is an open registration tournament meaning that anyone can sign up if they want to. Restrictions were made due to the fact that SC2 is new to the MLG pro scene and it was unclear of what kind of turnout was expected.
If you are good enough then you will make a splash in the competitive scene regardless of who is or isn't in it. To be the best you have to prove yourself AGAINST the best.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Though I would still play if it got expanded, it seems kind of unfair to announce it as 32 and then just be like SURPRISE it's 256 now.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
How is that UNFAIR? This is an open registration tournament meaning that anyone can sign up if they want to. Restrictions were made due to the fact that SC2 is new to the MLG pro scene and it was unclear of what kind of turnout was expected.
If you are good enough then you will make a splash in the competitive scene regardless of who is or isn't in it. To be the best you have to prove yourself AGAINST the best.
Like I said, i'm still going to play.
I just think they shouldn't expand the pool since certain people didn't get in to an open registration tournament. The idea is first come first serve, not first come and then we let in more people too if they complain.
On August 04 2010 09:00 Backpack wrote: I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
If you're not good enough, you don't deserve to get into the competitive scene. It's the bleak truth.
On August 04 2010 06:33 Lz wrote: #2. in the general rules makes me worry t.t
That got me worried too. Obviously MLG sponsors pushed for this, but I find it an unreasonable demand. Sponsored players are required to wear their team uniforms. :/
After reading Jibba's post I must say the rules should be a little more clear.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Though I would still play if it got expanded, it seems kind of unfair to announce it as 32 and then just be like SURPRISE it's 256 now.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
It doesn't really matter if they are exciting games. Big names are what really bring in the viewers, if nobodies are playing, even if they are good nobodies, not as many people will watch it (at least live).
On August 04 2010 09:00 Backpack wrote: I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
If you're not good enough, you don't deserve to get into the competitive scene. It's the bleak truth.
please read my second post, I wasn't saying that I don't want to play pros though I can see how it would be easy to make that assumption
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Though I would still play if it got expanded, it seems kind of unfair to announce it as 32 and then just be like SURPRISE it's 256 now.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
How is that UNFAIR? This is an open registration tournament meaning that anyone can sign up if they want to. Restrictions were made due to the fact that SC2 is new to the MLG pro scene and it was unclear of what kind of turnout was expected.
If you are good enough then you will make a splash in the competitive scene regardless of who is or isn't in it. To be the best you have to prove yourself AGAINST the best.
Like I said, i'm still going to play.
I just think they shouldn't expand the pool since certain people didn't get in to an open registration tournament. The idea is first come first serve, not first come and then we let in more people too if they complain.
I understood what you said. Their reasoning behind expanding would not be based on the fact that some people did not get in. This is SC2's first event, meaning that MLG had to make some assumptions about this tournament before it happened. They wanted to open these first 32 spots and go from there.. Seeing as it sold out in a little over 2 minutes they will make changes as needed.
Also, this is not the first shindig for MLG. This situation has arisen in the past and has been dealt with accordingly. Needless to say, they know what they are doing.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Though I would still play if it got expanded, it seems kind of unfair to announce it as 32 and then just be like SURPRISE it's 256 now.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
I don't foresee a 256 player expansion since logistically that would be a nightmare. It might be invitations from this point on. Just have to wait for Lee to post anything official. GL in the tournament.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
Battle.net is how unknown players get into the competitive scene. Look at how many new SC2 stars are totally new to SC. It's not exactly hard to get your name known in this community if you actually deserve it.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
Not usually. It's not just a gap in execution, it's also a gap in understanding the game.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Though I would still play if it got expanded, it seems kind of unfair to announce it as 32 and then just be like SURPRISE it's 256 now.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
How is that UNFAIR? This is an open registration tournament meaning that anyone can sign up if they want to. Restrictions were made due to the fact that SC2 is new to the MLG pro scene and it was unclear of what kind of turnout was expected.
If you are good enough then you will make a splash in the competitive scene regardless of who is or isn't in it. To be the best you have to prove yourself AGAINST the best.
Like I said, i'm still going to play.
I just think they shouldn't expand the pool since certain people didn't get in to an open registration tournament. The idea is first come first serve, not first come and then we let in more people too if they complain.
I understood what you said. Their reasoning behind expanding would not be based on the fact that some people did not get in. This is SC2's first event, meaning that MLG had to make some assumptions about this tournament before it happened. They wanted to open these first 32 spots and go from there.. Seeing as it sold out in a little over 2 minutes they will make changes as needed.
Also, this is not the first shindig for MLG. This situation has arisen in the past and has been dealt with accordingly. Needless to say, they know what they are doing.
Well they should expand for the next event.
I just don't like the idea of changing the rules after they've been announced. I made sure I was home by 6:30 so there was no way i was gonna miss my ticket.
I'm not going to argue about my opinion any more, i'm gonna play no matter what.
edit: people are still quoting my first post -_- im fine with pros playing, i just don't like rule changes after they've been announced. that's all there is to it
On August 04 2010 09:19 Chairman Ray wrote: Everything sounds good except for the race switching. I think that would make for much worse gameplay.
it's good for players like TLO that can main 2 races but it leads to inconsistency from players. I tend to cheer for players that play a certain race very well more than I would someone that just randoms and isn't the absolute best at all 3.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
If anyone registered for this event just to win money against a weak player pool they deserve to get wrecked by a stronger player pool, IMO.
On August 04 2010 07:39 Mannerheim wrote: MLG hasn't featured games that have a significant competitive presence outside the organization before, SC2 is a whole new scenario.
SC2 might have the biggest they have done but your statement is flat out false. WoW, SSBB, tekken all are competitive outside of MLG. If anything the SC community has a big ego about how things are done in korea and if anyone changes anything they will somehow ruin it. Fact is you can't just copy and paste what happen in korea and expect it to work everywhere. Every organization is going to have their own restrictions and time to worry about.
To be fair, I think the Courage model of qualification for MSL/OSL prelims is a pretty good place to start as far as designing a qualification scheme.
You know what would be a really cool qualification scheme. The 32 people who pay the highest entry fee. The prize pool could reach exorbitant amounts and entire organizations would be backing players to make a huge pay day. Maybe a few rich people would show up for kicks. Awesome?
Is there a reason this is in response to my post? Because I'm not sure if you're trying to point out a flaw in the idea of a Courage-based qualification scheme, or just making a joke.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Though I would still play if it got expanded, it seems kind of unfair to announce it as 32 and then just be like SURPRISE it's 256 now.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
How is that UNFAIR? This is an open registration tournament meaning that anyone can sign up if they want to. Restrictions were made due to the fact that SC2 is new to the MLG pro scene and it was unclear of what kind of turnout was expected.
If you are good enough then you will make a splash in the competitive scene regardless of who is or isn't in it. To be the best you have to prove yourself AGAINST the best.
Like I said, i'm still going to play.
I just think they shouldn't expand the pool since certain people didn't get in to an open registration tournament. The idea is first come first serve, not first come and then we let in more people too if they complain.
I understood what you said. Their reasoning behind expanding would not be based on the fact that some people did not get in. This is SC2's first event, meaning that MLG had to make some assumptions about this tournament before it happened. They wanted to open these first 32 spots and go from there.. Seeing as it sold out in a little over 2 minutes they will make changes as needed.
Also, this is not the first shindig for MLG. This situation has arisen in the past and has been dealt with accordingly. Needless to say, they know what they are doing.
Well they should expand for the next event.
I just don't like the idea of changing the rules after they've been announced. I made sure I was home by 6:30 so there was no way i was gonna miss my ticket.
I'm not going to argue about my opinion any more, i'm gonna play no matter what.
edit: people are still quoting my first post -_- im fine with pros playing, i just don't like rule changes after they've been announced. that's all there is to it
MLG made it pretty clear BEFORE passes went on sale, that if 32 were to sell out fast enough, proper procedures would take place to assure that more people can get in...not necessarily in those exact words, but close enough.
Your acting as if they JUST decided to make it larger, when in fact it was stated publicly 2-3 days ago.
Also, when your dealing with an MLG caliber event, the top finishers should be the best guys in the game, not an above average guy who played a bunch of average competitors. I'm assuming at least some pros got in, so I'm sure it won't be some random person who actually wins it. But the top guys who practice all day that wanted to compete, should not be forced to sit-out because he wasn't able to hit "submit" faster than 32 people.
I am not an amazing player, but if I was, I would be pissed off at some of these rules.
USB headsets are EXTREMELY common and are banned
The Logitech Mini Optical is not a USB mouse and is thus banned.
In addition to this, at the highest level, mouse precision is very important and having a player switch mice at the last minute could hurt the performance. Hell, Flash measures the fucking distance of his mice and keyboard with a ruler. He would probably have a seizure if he tried to play in a match where his mouse and keyboard are banned.
Some sponsors will not be allowed to sponsor? I can see this being a large problem.
Default settings only? But EVERYONE plays on different settings. Some like it on ultra, some like it on the lowest possible. More of an annoyance than anything.
I can understand standardizing screen resolution as widescreen monitors will display more of the map, but if a player prefers one aspect ratio over the other, why not let them have it?
On August 04 2010 09:19 Chairman Ray wrote: Everything sounds good except for the race switching. I think that would make for much worse gameplay.
it's good for players like TLO that can main 2 races but it leads to inconsistency from players. I tend to cheer for players that play a certain race very well more than I would someone that just randoms and isn't the absolute best at all 3.
I doubt someone from those 32 fastest buyer can main 2 races like TLO, so it shouldn't be a problem. Oh wait, I'm actually worried that some of them may not even be able to main 1 race... We will see.
8. All User Interface setups will be confined to the Blizzard default options.
You should really allow custom hotkey setups, most of them can be edited directly through the official interface and the rest are easily modifiable. It probably isn't a problem for most players but I don't like the precedent it sets for tournaments - forcing players into inefficient set-ups because it's slightly more convenient.
1. The latest official Patch version will be used throughout the Event.
It would be better to use the same patch throughout the entirety of an event since changes to game will effect the players strategies/play-styles without them really having any time to adapt. And it will cause a lot of drama if the changes are large enough. I'm not sure how this is really possible to do though.
8. Referees will conduct a Blind Pick of Races for Game 1 of a Match.
Races should be picked and announced to everyone prior to the matches. Preparing for a specific match-up on a specific set of maps is a big part of SC. Keeping players in the dark will dilute the focus of their practice, and we'll end up with less refined and less interesting strategies. On the same note, players should not be allowed to pick Random as a race. It not good for the spectators or the players, really bad rule - what's the reasoning behind it?
9. The loser of a Game may select a different Race for the next Game
I don't think this is right, players should only be allowed the play the race they have chosen for the entire match. Same reason as above.
14. If a Player loses their connection to the Host during a Game, the Game must be replayed.
Wouldn't this be a huge problem in online qualifiers, or even normal qualifiers because of disconnectors? The shadow of the doubt always rests on the disconnectors and I thought the standard protocol was: If the disconnector was only slightly ahead/even/behind at the time of the disconnect, he/she loses that game. If the disconnector was clearly ahead at the time of the disconnect then the game must be replayed. If the disconnector was on the in a virtually undefeatable position at the time of the disconnect, he/she is granted the win.
Of course this way is more troublesome since it requires referees who are good enough at the game to know when someone is roughly ahead or behind and may even require someone really good in the last scenario but it seems the most fair way of dealing with things.
16. If all Minerals on the Map have been consumed and no Units or Structures have been killed for 5 minutes, the Game will be replayed.
Good rule, but should be not a strict 5min but rather that the after 5min of inactivity and no resources the game may be called as a draw by the ref.
Rule Suggestion: You should make rules regarding chat during the game.
Other stuff all sounds goods, I've enjoyed all the content MLG and JP have put out and been involved in with SC2 so good luck!
On August 04 2010 09:28 rockon1215 wrote: USB headsets are EXTREMELY common and are banned
The Logitech Mini Optical is not a USB mouse and is thus banned.
As has been stated before, both of these cause a logistics nightmare. In particular, a scenario was cited where hardware failures occurred at a WoW event due to poor management of PS/2 hardware.
It's not like these 2 rules are arbitrary--they've likely come about due to managing events for other PC games.
On August 04 2010 09:28 rockon1215 wrote: Some sponsors will not be allowed to sponsor? I can see this being a large problem.
They're allowed to sponsor, just certain restrictions are there for what can go on apparel (I'm assuming this is a case-by-case basis thing). Like the above, I assume this comes out of experience with other events
On August 04 2010 07:27 0neder wrote: This is e-sports. Players' job is to entertain. Desert Oasis is perhaps the most entertaining map in the map pool.
Think about the word "e-sports". Electronic Sports. The players' job is to win. Just because no one is at your soccer game doesn't mean you don't play it.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Though I would still play if it got expanded, it seems kind of unfair to announce it as 32 and then just be like SURPRISE it's 256 now.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
How is that UNFAIR? This is an open registration tournament meaning that anyone can sign up if they want to. Restrictions were made due to the fact that SC2 is new to the MLG pro scene and it was unclear of what kind of turnout was expected.
If you are good enough then you will make a splash in the competitive scene regardless of who is or isn't in it. To be the best you have to prove yourself AGAINST the best.
Like I said, i'm still going to play.
I just think they shouldn't expand the pool since certain people didn't get in to an open registration tournament. The idea is first come first serve, not first come and then we let in more people too if they complain.
I understood what you said. Their reasoning behind expanding would not be based on the fact that some people did not get in. This is SC2's first event, meaning that MLG had to make some assumptions about this tournament before it happened. They wanted to open these first 32 spots and go from there.. Seeing as it sold out in a little over 2 minutes they will make changes as needed.
Also, this is not the first shindig for MLG. This situation has arisen in the past and has been dealt with accordingly. Needless to say, they know what they are doing.
Well they should expand for the next event.
I just don't like the idea of changing the rules after they've been announced. I made sure I was home by 6:30 so there was no way i was gonna miss my ticket.
I'm not going to argue about my opinion any more, i'm gonna play no matter what.
edit: people are still quoting my first post -_- im fine with pros playing, i just don't like rule changes after they've been announced. that's all there is to it
MLG made it pretty clear BEFORE passes went on sale, that if 32 were to sell out fast enough, proper procedures would take place to assure that more people can get in...not necessarily in those exact words, but close enough.
Your acting as if they JUST decided to make it larger, when in fact it was stated publicly 2-3 days ago.
Also, when your dealing with an MLG caliber event, the top finishers should be the best guys in the game, not an above average guy who played a bunch of average competitors. I'm assuming at least some pros got in, so I'm sure it won't be some random person who actually wins it. But the top guys who practice all day that wanted to compete, should not be forced to sit-out because he wasn't able to hit "submit" faster than 32 people.
I know i said I wasn't going to argue this any further, but if they didn't want it to be open registration they would have made it invite only.
Also, can you link me to where they announced that they would make this specific event larger?
On August 04 2010 09:28 rockon1215 wrote: USB headsets are EXTREMELY common and are banned
The Logitech Mini Optical is not a USB mouse and is thus banned.
As has been stated before, both of these cause a logistics nightmare. In particular, a scenario was cited where hardware failures occurred at a WoW event due to poor management of PS/2 hardware.
It's not like these 2 rules are arbitrary--they've likely come about due to managing events for other PC games.
There's plenty of other events that allow PS/2 equipment.
Do you really think the hardware failure occurred because a single player plugged in their PS/2 equipment too much? It occurred because the rigs were made by Hewlett Packard.
On August 04 2010 08:56 yoshi_yoshi wrote: It could suck for those already registered if you expand the player pool though, since they had paid their money with the expectation of a weaker player pool.
Though I would still play if it got expanded, it seems kind of unfair to announce it as 32 and then just be like SURPRISE it's 256 now.
I understand that some high level people wanted to get in, but so did some unknown people and this could be a chance for someone who isn't in the top 25 famous players everyone knows about to get into the competitive scene.
It should be fair for everyone IMO.
edit: Also, just because HuK and NonY didn't get in doesn't mean it's gonna be a bunch of copper noobs. We don't have a player list and unknown people can still play exciting games.
How is that UNFAIR? This is an open registration tournament meaning that anyone can sign up if they want to. Restrictions were made due to the fact that SC2 is new to the MLG pro scene and it was unclear of what kind of turnout was expected.
If you are good enough then you will make a splash in the competitive scene regardless of who is or isn't in it. To be the best you have to prove yourself AGAINST the best.
Like I said, i'm still going to play.
I just think they shouldn't expand the pool since certain people didn't get in to an open registration tournament. The idea is first come first serve, not first come and then we let in more people too if they complain.
I understood what you said. Their reasoning behind expanding would not be based on the fact that some people did not get in. This is SC2's first event, meaning that MLG had to make some assumptions about this tournament before it happened. They wanted to open these first 32 spots and go from there.. Seeing as it sold out in a little over 2 minutes they will make changes as needed.
Also, this is not the first shindig for MLG. This situation has arisen in the past and has been dealt with accordingly. Needless to say, they know what they are doing.
Well they should expand for the next event.
I just don't like the idea of changing the rules after they've been announced. I made sure I was home by 6:30 so there was no way i was gonna miss my ticket.
I'm not going to argue about my opinion any more, i'm gonna play no matter what.
edit: people are still quoting my first post -_- im fine with pros playing, i just don't like rule changes after they've been announced. that's all there is to it
MLG made it pretty clear BEFORE passes went on sale, that if 32 were to sell out fast enough, proper procedures would take place to assure that more people can get in...not necessarily in those exact words, but close enough.
Your acting as if they JUST decided to make it larger, when in fact it was stated publicly 2-3 days ago.
Also, when your dealing with an MLG caliber event, the top finishers should be the best guys in the game, not an above average guy who played a bunch of average competitors. I'm assuming at least some pros got in, so I'm sure it won't be some random person who actually wins it. But the top guys who practice all day that wanted to compete, should not be forced to sit-out because he wasn't able to hit "submit" faster than 32 people.
I know i said I wasn't going to argue this any further, but if they didn't want it to be open registration they would have made it invite only.
Also, can you link me to where they announced that they would make this specific event larger?
On August 04 2010 09:28 rockon1215 wrote: USB headsets are EXTREMELY common and are banned
The Logitech Mini Optical is not a USB mouse and is thus banned.
As has been stated before, both of these cause a logistics nightmare. In particular, a scenario was cited where hardware failures occurred at a WoW event due to poor management of PS/2 hardware.
It's not like these 2 rules are arbitrary--they've likely come about due to managing events for other PC games.
There's plenty of other events that allow PS/2 equipment.
Do you really think the hardware failure occurred because a single player plugged in their PS/2 equipment too much? It occurred because the rigs were made by Hewlett Packard.
HP doesn't manufacture cases, motherboards, ps2 connectors, keyboards . . . I could go on
On August 04 2010 09:28 rockon1215 wrote: USB headsets are EXTREMELY common and are banned
The Logitech Mini Optical is not a USB mouse and is thus banned.
As has been stated before, both of these cause a logistics nightmare. In particular, a scenario was cited where hardware failures occurred at a WoW event due to poor management of PS/2 hardware.
It's not like these 2 rules are arbitrary--they've likely come about due to managing events for other PC games.
There's plenty of other events that allow PS/2 equipment.
Do you really think the hardware failure occurred because a single player plugged in their PS/2 equipment too much? It occurred because the rigs were made by Hewlett Packard.
HP doesn't manufacture cases, motherboards, ps2 connectors, keyboards . . . I could go on
No, but they choose the parts that are used and often modify them to custom standards. It's hardly a coincidence that HP continually ranks poorly in hardware failure rate.
I can cite literally hundreds, maybe even thousands, of other competitive PC gaming tournaments in the past that have allowed PS/2 connections, especially for keyboards.
MLG was just using bad computers in the WoW tournaments.
A faulty i/o Shield/Case could cause a short, though it is a bit rare.
though PS/2 isn't exactly the most useful port since most gamers can either add an adapter to USB or just play with USB equipment (which most do anyways)
On August 04 2010 09:28 rockon1215 wrote: USB headsets are EXTREMELY common and are banned
The Logitech Mini Optical is not a USB mouse and is thus banned.
As has been stated before, both of these cause a logistics nightmare. In particular, a scenario was cited where hardware failures occurred at a WoW event due to poor management of PS/2 hardware.
It's not like these 2 rules are arbitrary--they've likely come about due to managing events for other PC games.
There's plenty of other events that allow PS/2 equipment.
Do you really think the hardware failure occurred because a single player plugged in their PS/2 equipment too much? It occurred because the rigs were made by Hewlett Packard.
HP doesn't manufacture cases, motherboards, ps2 connectors, keyboards . . . I could go on
It's all OEM. Just like those name brand PSU, keyboards, mice etc you buy from a store. You don't know what plant manufactured it but they offer a warranty they cover if you have problem. At a tournament if you have problem with hardware you may not be able to repair on the spot in a reasonable amount of time. You just need a spare computer to replace it or use another station which just inconveniences everyone and causes delays.
I hope in future MLG events the map pool will be changed up to non-blizzard maps. Watching the same maps day in and day out is going to get boring imo. Plus, imbalanced...
On August 04 2010 10:11 RifleCow wrote: I hope in future MLG events the map pool will be changed up to non-blizzard maps. Watching the same maps day in and day out is going to get boring imo. Plus, imbalanced...
I think moving in that direction is only possible after MLG establishes themselves on the tournament scene. As it stands, if the tournament doesn't have a big presence on the scene, it's not going to be very convincing for people to practice on non-ladder maps when virtually every other tournament is using the ladder ones.
On August 04 2010 10:03 chekthehek wrote: Maps Blistering Sands Delta Quadrant Desert Oasis Kulas Ravine Lost Temple Metalopolis Steppes of War
lol
Would you rather have Scrap Station or Xel'Naga Caverns?
If we're limited to ladder maps, the map pool really can't get much better. Though IMO Crossfire should be added somewhere.
On August 04 2010 10:11 RifleCow wrote: I hope in future MLG events the map pool will be changed up to non-blizzard maps. Watching the same maps day in and day out is going to get boring imo. Plus, imbalanced...
I think moving in that direction is only possible after MLG establishes themselves on the tournament scene. As it stands, if the tournament doesn't have a big presence on the scene, it's not going to be very convincing for people to practice on non-ladder maps when virtually every other tournament is using the ladder ones.
I would really like to see some universally established source of maps that will be standardized accross all tournaments, sorta like the Proleague, OSL/MSL maps. It would be real cool if there was one community or group that every community would go to for maps then we could have like new maps every season.
On August 04 2010 10:11 RifleCow wrote: I hope in future MLG events the map pool will be changed up to non-blizzard maps. Watching the same maps day in and day out is going to get boring imo. Plus, imbalanced...
They would have to announce this way more than 24 days ahead of time.
On August 04 2010 09:28 rockon1215 wrote: USB headsets are EXTREMELY common and are banned
The Logitech Mini Optical is not a USB mouse and is thus banned.
As has been stated before, both of these cause a logistics nightmare. In particular, a scenario was cited where hardware failures occurred at a WoW event due to poor management of PS/2 hardware.
It's not like these 2 rules are arbitrary--they've likely come about due to managing events for other PC games.
I have highlighted, in bold, the relevant part of your response.
This is NOT A FAILURE OF THE HARDWARE. You said it yourself. This is poor management.
fix the management, don't start making arbitrary rules. The rules ARE arbitrary.
Failure to manage is not failure of hardware. Shape up. Banning the Logitech mini optical, and USB headsets, is, to be completely and clearly blunt, fucking stupid.
This rule, to me, screams of what we all thought of chat channels during beta.
"Blizz can't moderate them, so they don't allow/implement chat channels." "MLG can't handle managing PS/2 devices, so they don't allow them."
Wait, so lots of equipment specifications with no rules against equipment with macro features?
Also what's with the no sponsors thing? How can we have esports without teams? How can we have teams without sponsors? This move undermines what we all want to see from the game. I'd rather have Kespa than MLG...
On August 04 2010 10:28 FragKrag wrote: Scrap Station is absolutely terrible in PvZ T_T
Desert Oasis despite being weird creates some of the most interesting games so I'd like it to stay. Not sure why Twilight Caverns isn't in though.
xelnaga caverns is much better than DO or Scrap Station. The only modification I'd make is to make the nats a little closer to the mains. Scrap will always be an awful Paranoid Android and DO will always be shit. It might be more entertaining for the viewers if the competitors play while being raked over hot coals but that doesn't mean MLG should do it
On August 04 2010 10:35 thopol wrote: Wait, so lots of equipment specifications with no rules against equipment with macro features?
Also what's with the no sponsors thing? How can we have esports without teams? How can we have teams without sponsors? This move undermines what we all want to see from the game. I'd rather have Kespa than MLG...
If you ever watched the MLG Warcraft streams, sponsored teams won't be an issue really. They put it in the rules so they can respond if they have to deal with a special case.
Failure to manage is not failure of hardware. Shape up. Banning the Logitech mini optical, and USB headsets, is, to be completely and clearly blunt, fucking stupid.
did you bother reading the thread? usb headsets are banned because for WOW they patch into the player's audio and team chat, which apparently they can't do if they're using usb. they can use the logitech minioptical all they want if they have a ps2 to usb converter.
Note the section on Electrical interface. The PS/2 Interface is an unregulated power interface. Hot PLUGGING or UNPLUGGING can result in shorting out the motherboard. HP isn't a sponsor anymore but I'm still going to defend it. The Blackbird has an ASUS motherboard in it. ASUS doesn't make crap. This is a known proven issue. Not one we're imagining.
This rule isn't changing. I've explained why. I've linked you a top google search result. What more proof do you need? :D
RE: USB headphones. This is a requirement for broadcast and tournament flow reasons. Feel free to speculate.
To InfiniteIce. Love you too bud. We're hardly copping out. Read the rest of the threads. Reasons have been explained.
Remove Desert Oasis from the map pool and it looks completely fine to me. Kulas Ravine is super questionable (that map is really...yea.) but at least its not unreal hell like Desert Oasis. Look into some of iCCup's maps in their thread MLG guys, they are solid brood war remakes with seemly balanced mechanics. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=139560
On August 04 2010 10:11 RifleCow wrote: I hope in future MLG events the map pool will be changed up to non-blizzard maps. Watching the same maps day in and day out is going to get boring imo. Plus, imbalanced...
I think moving in that direction is only possible after MLG establishes themselves on the tournament scene. As it stands, if the tournament doesn't have a big presence on the scene, it's not going to be very convincing for people to practice on non-ladder maps when virtually every other tournament is using the ladder ones.
Use bw maps... let's face it, everybody who is good this early on has at least played bw enough to know the outlines of them. The ladder maps blow.
I'm assuming that they're sticking to the Blizzard maps since it's pretty much an official Blizzard event... but Desert Oasis and Delta Quadrant? Really?
Honestly though, they really need to be using some better maps in tournaments, especially the big ones. Like Destination, the other BW remakes, the iCCup maps, and MorroW's maps like Argutaris (which he really needs to get more people playing soon, btw, if he really wants the map tested properly).
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Plus we've all been playing ladder maps for the past 6 months. Not BW remakes
On August 04 2010 11:48 Backpack wrote: Plus we've all been playing ladder maps for the past 6 months. Not BW remakes
Let's logically extend that argument. In six more months you could be saying 'well we've been playing these ladder maps for the past year.'
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Have you even tried them? They're better, straight up. There's a LOT that transitions over.
General Rule #2 is completely unacceptable. But I'm not a pro-gamer so you won't be butting heads with me over it. But seriously, when you have to start telling the players how they can and can't dress for the sake avoid avoiding "conflicts with your sponsors", you have started to go a bit far. For example, if Pepsi helps sponsor the event, will you tell me I can't be seen drinking a Coke or a Dr. Pepper? Nooooonsense.
Gameplay rules #14 and #16 sound like they may be abusable.
The rest mostly seems fine and designed to encourage fair, competitive play. I shall now dip out of this thread before I make myself look (more) ignorant by bitching about sponsorship-related issues.
On August 04 2010 12:02 UniversalSnip wrote: Let's logically extend that argument. In six more months you could be saying 'well we've been playing these ladder maps for the past year.'
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Have you played them? They're better, straight up. There's a LOT that transitions over.
Because then the players would have to download these maps they probably haven't played on before in short notice. The ladder maps are more standard because people have been playing them since beta or release. Give it time and tournaments will pick up newer maps.
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Have you even tried them? They're better, straight up. There's a LOT that transitions over.
If they announce the map pool more than say 24 days ahead of time, we would have time to practice on them. But you can't just expect players to know old BW maps.
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Have you even tried them? They're better, straight up. There's a LOT that transitions over.
They're better in your opinion. They haven't had nearly the amount of high level games that the Blizzard maps have had, so the balance situation is very ambiguous.
On August 04 2010 11:48 Backpack wrote: Plus we've all been playing ladder maps for the past 6 months. Not BW remakes
Let's logically extend that argument. In six more months you could be saying 'well we've been playing these ladder maps for the past year.'
On August 04 2010 11:39 FragKrag wrote: Why the hell would you use unproven BW remakes? It's not like anything transitions directly over from BW to SC2
jesus
Have you even tried them? They're better, straight up. There's a LOT that transitions over.
They're better in your opinion. They haven't had nearly the amount of high level games that the Blizzard maps have had, so the balance situation is very ambiguous.
The balance situation is not at all ambiguous for blizzard maps though... they're not tournament quality. How can people argue this when even blizzard has said, without any ambiguity at all, that they won't be introducing complex maps into the ladder, and that they expect tournaments not to use ladder maps?
Failure to manage is not failure of hardware. Shape up. Banning the Logitech mini optical, and USB headsets, is, to be completely and clearly blunt, fucking stupid.
did you bother reading the thread? usb headsets are banned because for WOW they patch into the player's audio and team chat, which apparently they can't do if they're using usb. they can use the logitech minioptical all they want if they have a ps2 to usb converter.
Is this WOW? Do you even need voice chat for a 1v1 tournament?
On August 04 2010 12:50 UniversalSnip wrote: The balance situation is not at all ambiguous for blizzard maps though... they're not tournament quality. How can people argue this when even blizzard has said, without any ambiguity at all, that they won't be introducing complex maps into the ladder, and that they expect tournaments not to use ladder maps?
On August 04 2010 12:50 UniversalSnip wrote: The balance situation is not at all ambiguous for blizzard maps though... they're not tournament quality. How can people argue this when even blizzard has said, without any ambiguity at all, that they won't be introducing complex maps into the ladder, and that they expect tournaments not to use ladder maps?
Source?
He's telling the truth. In the best buy interview Blizzard said they will not be putting complex maps to the map cool as we can just make our own maps and play them. Gl to the rest of the players who can't practice with the pro's on those maps sense they wont' be on the ladder
On August 04 2010 12:50 UniversalSnip wrote: The balance situation is not at all ambiguous for blizzard maps though... they're not tournament quality. How can people argue this when even blizzard has said, without any ambiguity at all, that they won't be introducing complex maps into the ladder, and that they expect tournaments not to use ladder maps?
Source?
He's telling the truth. In the best buy interview Blizzard said they will not be putting complex maps to the map cool as we can just make our own maps and play them. Gl to the rest of the players who can't practice with the pro's on those maps sense they wont' be on the ladder
I'm not questioning it, I'm legitimately asking for a source, as this came up in a discussion elsewhere.
On August 04 2010 06:40 Senx wrote: It's a shame you didn't take the opportunity to use some of the more balance maps, ex SC:BW remakes for example.
BW maps for BW.
Doesn't mean it will be balanced for SC2.
Not to mention the complete lack of practice players have with these maps. AND it's the first event. Good idea, let's make our first tournament feature maps that no one's played on. Most tournaments throughout beta used the ladder maps. Don't know what gave you the idea that MLG would be different.
9. The loser of a Game may select a different Race for the next Game. 10. Players who quit out of a Game before it has ended, without Referee’s permission, will lose the Game.
Races should be locked for the entire event IMO.
And 10 just seems a bit pointless... Leaving has always mean to concede the game. Why would any player ask the referee that they want to leave? So the consequence for leaving the game (aka forfeiting and losing the game) without permission is... to lose the game?? What?
9. The loser of a Game may select a different Race for the next Game. 10. Players who quit out of a Game before it has ended, without Referee’s permission, will lose the Game.
Races should be locked for the entire event IMO.
And 10 just seems a bit pointless... Leaving has always mean to concede the game. Why would any player ask the referee that they want to leave? So the consequence for leaving the game (aka forfeiting and losing the game) without permission is... to lose the game?? What?
It's probably so you can't do things like say your equipment isn't working, or claim there was a glitch and leave, when you're actually just unhappy with your spawn or messed up your split or something.
On August 04 2010 12:50 UniversalSnip wrote: The balance situation is not at all ambiguous for blizzard maps though... they're not tournament quality. How can people argue this when even blizzard has said, without any ambiguity at all, that they won't be introducing complex maps into the ladder, and that they expect tournaments not to use ladder maps?
Source?
He's telling the truth. In the best buy interview Blizzard said they will not be putting complex maps to the map cool as we can just make our own maps and play them. Gl to the rest of the players who can't practice with the pro's on those maps sense they wont' be on the ladder
I'm not questioning it, I'm legitimately asking for a source, as this came up in a discussion elsewhere.
Guest-300: are we going to see more 4 player maps that are 1v1 friendly, or bigger 1v1 maps in the final game? I feel that most of the maps that are in beta right now are pretty small, especially comparing them to maps that are played in the professional BW scene right now DustinB:: Professional BroodWar maps are for professional broodwar players.=) We are not planning on introducing those types of maps to the ladder in the near future. Ladder maps are smaller and less complicated on purpose because they have to serve a much wider community than the top 1% of players. We expect that professional players will be making their own maps and we will see more and more of those in tournament play going forward.
3. In the case of a Computer/Monitor malfunction, the Game will be restarted from the beginning.
I have a few thoughts on this rule. There are really only two ways to do it when the computer or internet connection is not the player's: 1) always regame, or 2) give the player whose comp malfunctioned a loss.
In online tournaments, since the player has 100% control over his connection and equipment, it's easy. If disc, you lost. There's those horrible situations where a player is winning by a lot (think eliminating buildings) and then discs, but ultimately you can point and say that's his equipment (even though it might have just been random chance).
Here, however, all of the computer/monitor/connection stuff is MLG's, thus it's going to be really bad if someone is winning and the computer shuts down, because its an automatic replay no matter how much a player is winning. The advantages to this approach is that it removes all administrative discretion in awarding wins, so there's no human error to blame. The nightmare situation is what I described above, someone is eliminating his opponents' buildings and discs and they have to replay. You can't even fault the player at all since it's not his stuff, it's purely bad luck.
There is no easy way to solve this issue, and it could result in some grossly unjust results if the comps or internet breaks down in bad situations. Frankly I don't know which way is better, but it would be nice if the admins had at least a little discretion in terms of whether game would be replayed or not. But even doing that could open you up to a lot of whining about who had the advantage.
3. In the case of a Computer/Monitor malfunction, the Game will be restarted from the beginning.
I have a few thoughts on this rule. There are really only two ways to do it when the computer or internet connection is not the player's: 1) always regame, or 2) give the player whose comp malfunctioned a loss.
In online tournaments, since the player has 100% control over his connection and equipment, it's easy. If disc, you lost. There's those horrible situations where a player is winning by a lot (think eliminating buildings) and then discs, but ultimately you can point and say that's his equipment (even though it might have just been random chance).
Here, however, all of the computer/monitor/connection stuff is MLG's, thus it's going to be really bad if someone is winning and the computer shuts down, because its an automatic replay no matter how much a player is winning. The advantages to this approach is that it removes all administrative discretion in awarding wins, so there's no human error to blame. The nightmare situation is what I described above, someone is eliminating his opponents' buildings and discs and they have to replay. You can't even fault the player at all since it's not his stuff, it's purely bad luck.
There is no easy way to solve this issue, and it could result in some grossly unjust results if the comps or internet breaks down in bad situations. Frankly I don't know which way is better, but it would be nice if the admins had at least a little discretion in terms of whether game would be replayed or not. But even doing that could open you up to a lot of whining about who had the advantage.
LOL this happened very recently in MLG for Halo. It cost one team a chance for the title and completely demoralized them.
Here TD is about to win the game and cap the flag. They are ahead and its clear that the player is about to cap it. His xbox freezes, they have to reply the game over and continue to lose the next two games, get knocked into the losers bracket and then have a huge team breakup. This is pretty crazy, but it seems MLG will always have this rule
3. In the case of a Computer/Monitor malfunction, the Game will be restarted from the beginning.
I have a few thoughts on this rule. There are really only two ways to do it when the computer or internet connection is not the player's: 1) always regame, or 2) give the player whose comp malfunctioned a loss.
In online tournaments, since the player has 100% control over his connection and equipment, it's easy. If disc, you lost. There's those horrible situations where a player is winning by a lot (think eliminating buildings) and then discs, but ultimately you can point and say that's his equipment (even though it might have just been random chance).
Here, however, all of the computer/monitor/connection stuff is MLG's, thus it's going to be really bad if someone is winning and the computer shuts down, because its an automatic replay no matter how much a player is winning. The advantages to this approach is that it removes all administrative discretion in awarding wins, so there's no human error to blame. The nightmare situation is what I described above, someone is eliminating his opponents' buildings and discs and they have to replay. You can't even fault the player at all since it's not his stuff, it's purely bad luck.
There is no easy way to solve this issue, and it could result in some grossly unjust results if the comps or internet breaks down in bad situations. Frankly I don't know which way is better, but it would be nice if the admins had at least a little discretion in terms of whether game would be replayed or not. But even doing that could open you up to a lot of whining about who had the advantage.
I'd say it's just like that because it's easier for them. No decision making necessary. "By the book."
Ideally, you could have a panel of experts come to a decision (I'm assuming their refs don't know anything about the game).
And people will whine when it comes to making a decision that's not too clear cut. People constantly bitch about the calls a referee makes during ball games. But at least the easy calls can be made because telling people to replay a match that was heavily in the favor of one of the players can easily produce just as much controversy.
On August 04 2010 06:40 Senx wrote: It's a shame you didn't take the opportunity to use some of the more balance maps, ex SC:BW remakes for example.
BW maps for BW.
Doesn't mean it will be balanced for SC2.
Not to mention the complete lack of practice players have with these maps. AND it's the first event. Good idea, let's make our first tournament feature maps that no one's played on. Most tournaments throughout beta used the ladder maps. Don't know what gave you the idea that MLG would be different.
I don't know if you know this but the BW maps actually port over really really well from SC2. Have you tried playing on them?
I'm not saying that you should go and use untested maps for a tournament or anything but the BW map ports have so far proven to be rather balanced...far more balanced than the awful ladder maps that Blizzard has self admittedly said aren't for tournaments.
Does the blind race pick occur before or after the first map has been announced? Personally I think it should only be allowed to happen before, otherwise you're giving players who can play multiple races an advantage because they can pick their race on the basis of a map-specific racial imbalance.
Honestly you should just lock races for the entire event. You could easily offer the option of picking "random p/z" or similar and enforce the randomness with coin flips anyway.
On August 04 2010 22:57 kzn wrote: Here's a question that hasn't been answered:
Does the blind race pick occur before or after the first map has been announced? Personally I think it should only be allowed to happen before, otherwise you're giving players who can play multiple races an advantage because they can pick their race on the basis of a map-specific racial imbalance.
Honestly you should just lock races for the entire event. You could easily offer the option of picking "random p/z" or similar and enforce the randomness with coin flips anyway.
Blind race pick just means that the ref won't "reveal" the other players' race. It doesn't mean that the ref actually picks the race.
Yes I know but does it occur before the refs announce the first map for the match?
If you know what map is coming up the ability to pick your race is an advantage to all players who can multi-race, on top of the basic advantages that provides by default.
On August 05 2010 00:00 kzn wrote: Yes I know but does it occur before the refs announce the first map for the match?
If you know what map is coming up the ability to pick your race is an advantage to all players who can multi-race, on top of the basic advantages that provides by default.
does this really matter? is any good player multi racing?
[edit] Not to mention you wouldn't even have to be good on a particular race to do it.
Say you're a T playing someone who only plays P. First map is Desert Oasis - if I wasn't confident of my ability to beat him properly on DO I'd pick P and do a gas steal into void ray "cheese".
So, I win, I'm not allowed to switch my race for next game. He picks some map, whatever, I lose cause I'm P. I can now choose the map, I choose whatever map favors T most over P, and proceed to 2-1 partially by virtue of cheesing with a race I'm not particularly good with.
I'm gonna read through the thread and see which of these were answered.
3. Mice and keyboards must utilize standard USB interfaces. Players may not use PS2 interface equipment.
Seems bad. Why can't I use an older mouse if I want to? Satisfactorily explained.
7. Players may not change the Computer/Monitor sound and video settings.
Why? Can I change things like HP bars being always on or not, or building grids?
8. All User Interface setups will be confined to the Blizzard default options.
What does this mean? I can't change settings in the game, or I can't use 3rd party tools to modify the UI?
Can I change mouse sensitivity in game? Im pretty sure I wouldnt be able to play properly if I didn't get to change my mouse sensitivity (the one in game - the default is set extremely low).
I played in a tournament the other day, and changing all the settings to what I like, took like 30 seconds before each game - I don't see how it's a problem.
2. Players may not appear on a Station with sponsor insignia that is not approved by MLG or conflicts with MLG sponsors. Players and Coaches may be asked to wear MLG apparel for all Matches.
I guess this depends on what the process for being approved is - it's kinda shitty if you can't represent your sponsors at a big event however.
8. Referees will conduct a Blind Pick of Races for Game 1 of a Match
Why? So if someone plays PvT PvZ TvP you want to penalize him or something? I don't get it. Meh, almost nobody race switches but I don't see the need for a blind pick. If someone is good enough with several races to counter pick, then let them. I guess it's trying to avoid a stupid situation where both players keep changing their race perpetually?
10. Players who quit out of a Game before it has ended, without Referee’s permission, will lose the Game.
8. Referees will conduct a Blind Pick of Races for Game 1 of a Match
Why? So if someone plays PvT PvZ TvP you want to penalize him or something? I don't get it.
Player A is your setup.
Player B is PvP, ZvT, TvZ
Make both happy without blind pick. :p Other situations are possible as well. For the most part, a matchup picker should know his opponent's race as very few players can play multiple races anyway. Except for a complete unknown in the first round of a tournament, it is safe most of the time to assume a player will pick the same race they played their first tournament match as. If both players are matchup pickers and their matches do overlap, they could still just agree on their race picks as well.
I really like rules 8 and 9 as they seem quite fair. It allows someone who is able to play two races well to have an advantage (as they should for that ability, people really like TLO for creative play with multiple races). At the same time, it helps to limit the amount of abuse one can do with maps / matchups by forcing the winner to stay the same race. Seems balanced.
Frankly I don't see what all the fuss is about who is playing in the first qualifier. If they are good they will move on. A league like this has to start out somewhere, it doesn't instantly have the best of the best duking it out in qualifiers. All of their other games started out this way and now the competition in them is very good.
From what I have gathered when watching MLG is that the qualifiers are not really streamed anyway. You will get the big events every 3 months or so that will be worthwhile to tune into. If you don't like their format then don't bother with it, there are plenty of other tournaments out there(this will be a league). I like what MLG has done for E-sports in NA. If SC2 gets a lot of viewership in MLG it will grow by leaps and bounds. MLG is owned by ESPN iirc.
On August 05 2010 01:24 Kralic wrote: Frankly I don't see what all the fuss is about who is playing in the first qualifier. If they are good they will move on. A league like this has to start out somewhere, it doesn't instantly have the best of the best duking it out in qualifiers. All of their other games started out this way and now the competition in them is very good.
From what I have gathered when watching MLG is that the qualifiers are not really streamed anyway. You will get the big events every 3 months or so that will be worthwhile to tune into. If you don't like their format then don't bother with it, there are plenty of other tournaments out there(this will be a league). I like what MLG has done for E-sports in NA. If SC2 gets a lot of viewership in MLG it will grow by leaps and bounds. MLG is owned by ESPN iirc.
OK please please please can people stop calling it a fucking "qualifier". This tournament is a tournament not a qualifier. A qualifier is something that places you into a tournament with a price pool which is what we have at hand here. The end of the year championship is just a final tournament. These tournaments really don't affect the championship as long as your one of the "top" gamers you will get a spot at the end of the year. The big event every 3 months your talking about... this is it dude. The is MLG Raleigh. It will be a huge event not a damn qualifier. This event will most likely be streamed on mlgpro.com just like all the other tournaments going on
Since this is a tournament in the competitive SC2 scene and one of the first LAN tournaments we were all expecting to see the best of the best come duke it out on LAN. We don't want to watch some random get roflstomped by 1 good player and take down the tournament it would be pointless.
Obviously MLG can see they need to have an invite system like they do for WoW for this tourney or make it a way bigger bracket. I hope they will re-open the ticket sales so our beloved top tier players can bash each other in at this LAN.
My gold friend got a pass for kicks and giggles and is just going to try to 6 pool every round to make his point of how bad the system is... is that clear enough for you?
On August 05 2010 04:10 Backpack wrote: Why is everyone assuming its just a bunch of bads?
What about Silver in the ESL? Nobody had ever heard of him. + Show Spoiler +
He took out IdrA, QXC, HuK etc. etc.
Unknown players do not = bad players
Exactly, he did this in an online qualifier cup. Not one of the first big LAN events for a game. The point of these online qualifiers is to ensure quality at ESLs LAN events, and is a vastly better system than open registration. Everyone talks about 'testing the waters'. You should test the waters with the current best players in the region. These people win the money because they are the best in the region. If you don't believe that, step the fuck up in the countless $100 online events that they all take part in instead of taking a place in such a big event as an MLG tour stop. These things do get you recognized and earn you invites. This is a first for ESL as well and they have 2 events this month, both with more prize money and a real player selection system. This isn't 'just a qualifier for the championship', as an above poster said this is one of their big events in the year and the player pool should reflect that.
On August 05 2010 01:24 Kralic wrote: Frankly I don't see what all the fuss is about who is playing in the first qualifier. If they are good they will move on. A league like this has to start out somewhere, it doesn't instantly have the best of the best duking it out in qualifiers. All of their other games started out this way and now the competition in them is very good.
From what I have gathered when watching MLG is that the qualifiers are not really streamed anyway. You will get the big events every 3 months or so that will be worthwhile to tune into. If you don't like their format then don't bother with it, there are plenty of other tournaments out there(this will be a league). I like what MLG has done for E-sports in NA. If SC2 gets a lot of viewership in MLG it will grow by leaps and bounds. MLG is owned by ESPN iirc.
OK please please please can people stop calling it a fucking "qualifier". This tournament is a tournament not a qualifier. A qualifier is something that places you into a tournament with a price pool which is what we have at hand here. The end of the year championship is just a final tournament. These tournaments really don't affect the championship as long as your one of the "top" gamers you will get a spot at the end of the year. The big event every 3 months your talking about... this is it dude. The is MLG Raleigh. It will be a huge event not a damn qualifier. This event will most likely be streamed on mlgpro.com just like all the other tournaments going on
Since this is a tournament in the competitive SC2 scene and one of the first LAN tournaments we were all expecting to see the best of the best come duke it out on LAN. We don't want to watch some random get roflstomped by 1 good player and take down the tournament it would be pointless.
Obviously MLG can see they need to have an invite system like they do for WoW for this tourney or make it a way bigger bracket. I hope they will re-open the ticket sales so our beloved top tier players can bash each other in at this LAN.
Okay maybe I should have been a bit more clearer, if you want to go to Dallas which is the finals you need to do well at this tournament.
They are also not sure how SC2 will work out. I know you're not happy that you won't get to see the best of the best in it. This is the start for them running Starcraft 2 and I seriously hope it isn't an invite only event all the time, that is what made the WoW portion stale seeing the same teams with the same comp over and over again.
Having online qualifiers would be nice so you can see people who fought tooth and nail to get to the event, not someone who got an invite on their name alone, being top in ladder shouldn't be a guarantee either because I have seen a lot of the "high" ranked players in the beta suck in tournaments when the game actually mattered. The top players should have no problem qualifying through the online portion. You can of course have seeded players that did well in the last tournament.
MLG doesn't have this set in stone yet, they can change the format. Just be happy they are trying to utilize sc2 in the first place.
So many people in this thread are posting like spoiled children. If you don't like the MLG rules, voice your opinion like an adult and they'll look into it. If they can't address your problem, then don't go to the tournament. People suggesting that this should be run like OSL are somehow forgetting that SC has been established in Korea for over a decade - do you really think that they are going to put the money up to host a Courage type lan as a qualifier for the first SC2 tournament they host? That's fiscally irresponsible. Someone else is whining about the computers (HP) used by MLG. Guess what - HP sponsors MLG and probably provided those computers. When SC2 starts bringing in as much income for MLG as it does for Kespa etc. they will match that level of organization. To try to emulate them without having the same resources would be suicidal.
the no PS2 equipment is kinda weird. but i guess their computers don't support that kind of stuff?? maybe if you have one you could use a USB converter?
My gold friend got a pass for kicks and giggles and is just going to try to 6 pool every round to make his point of how bad the system is... is that clear enough for you?
Hey you found my post on MLG.
And yes our point is to show them how retarded their system is... should be amusing to say the least.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Do you think anyone would care one bit about the ongoing OSL if it didn't feature any of the top 20 KeSPA ranked players? In that case it would even be acceptable, due to the proper qualification process, but the end result would be the same... the audience would be empty.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Someone who gets it.
And we were already going to spectate MLG regardless so its an extra 25.
Not really a big deal.
And apparently you just don't pay attention to sponsorship issues that have arisen.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Well MLG is open registration.
There are plenty of other invitational tournaments that you can watch if you don't like this one.
Rule 16 of the gameplay rules seem kinda iffy to me. Although it's very rare that such a situation would ever happen and this might even be a non-issue, I can still see many cases where that really shouldn't be the case.
Such as the Stork v. GGPlay game like 2 years ago that lasted like...90 minutes. At the end of the game, the entire map was mined out and nothing was being killed, but that idle time was actually extremely important for Stork. He was using that time to recharge all his shields and energy before making a final push to eliminate GGPlay. If rule 16 was in place, Stork would never have won that game.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Someone who gets it.
And we were already going to spectate MLG regardless so its an extra 25.
Not really a big deal.
And apparently you just don't pay attention to sponsorship issues that have arisen.
There haven't been any to my knowledge. The sponsorship issue is only if something is conflicting. Further, other organizations have done this in the past and if you don't like it, too bad. In order to run these tournaments they need sponsors, and if maybe 1 person can't go because of conflicting sponsorship things then so be it. But I guess people looking to complain will always find something to complain about.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Well MLG is open registration.
There are plenty of other invitational tournaments that you can watch if you don't like this one.
That's not really an argument in favor of open registration, it's an argument in favor of not watching it... lol.
So I might have stretched the truth a small bit on MLG. He's mid diamond but ofc not really playing to win it... bet he still gets top 8.
That doesn't make my point any less true.
MLG wants people who are mid diamond or any league to participate. They just needed to see that the starcraft community could fill 32 slots. If MLG increases the bracket to 64 or 100+ then everyone will be happy and we will still see the top players.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Do you think anyone would care one bit about the ongoing OSL if it didn't feature any of the top 20 KeSPA ranked players? In that case it would even be acceptable, due to the proper qualification process, but the end result would be the same... the audience would be empty.
Did you read his post on MLG?
Nice misquote... ofc I mean MLG SC will be a joke and its true. They blatantly disallow all sponsors thereby eliminating any international players from having an incentive to play.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Well MLG is open registration.
There are plenty of other invitational tournaments that you can watch if you don't like this one.
That's not really an argument in favor of open registration, it's an argument in favor of not watching it... lol.
Exactly, if you don't like it don't watch it. They decided to do open registration so everyone needs to stop bitching about it.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Well MLG is open registration.
There are plenty of other invitational tournaments that you can watch if you don't like this one.
That's not really an argument in favor of open registration, it's an argument in favor of not watching it... lol.
Exactly, if you don't like it don't watch it. They decided to do open registration so everyone needs to stop bitching about it.
You don't really get it, that argument could be applied to any bad decision.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Well MLG is open registration.
There are plenty of other invitational tournaments that you can watch if you don't like this one.
That's not really an argument in favor of open registration, it's an argument in favor of not watching it... lol.
Exactly, if you don't like it don't watch it. They decided to do open registration so everyone needs to stop bitching about it.
You don't really get it, that argument could be applied to any bad decision.
I don't think it's a bad decision, and neither does MLG. That's what matters.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Well MLG is open registration.
There are plenty of other invitational tournaments that you can watch if you don't like this one.
That's not really an argument in favor of open registration, it's an argument in favor of not watching it... lol.
Exactly, if you don't like it don't watch it. They decided to do open registration so everyone needs to stop bitching about it.
You don't really get it, that argument could be applied to any bad decision.
I don't think it's a bad decision, and neither does MLG. That's what matters.
Your just some random that got a ticket and now doesnt want people to criticize their service and their tournament and doesn't want to play all the top players lol. Not all their events are open registration btw. Halo championship bracket is determined by points and WoW is invite only. So your wrong there.
I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be open registration and an online qualifier would be awesome where the top 32 advance, or the top 16 and then have a second one for the other 16? Not totally sure but either way it would make the quality of play much better. And like you pointed out they are new to SC, which is why they came here for our input as a community and we are giving it to them: "32 passes is not enough :D"
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Well MLG is open registration.
There are plenty of other invitational tournaments that you can watch if you don't like this one.
That's not really an argument in favor of open registration, it's an argument in favor of not watching it... lol.
Exactly, if you don't like it don't watch it. They decided to do open registration so everyone needs to stop bitching about it.
You don't really get it, that argument could be applied to any bad decision.
I don't think it's a bad decision, and neither does MLG. That's what matters.
No, you're hoping to win the tourney because the strongest NA players weren't able to enter. That is your only reason and your only motive to argue the point. It's pretty sad.
Your points are all valid, but you're also missing MLG's perspective.
The intent of open registration is enable ANYONE who wants to come to an MLG to be able to come and compete. But as with WoW and Halo, the matches we broadcast are of the pro's. MLG's about making competitive gaming as big and as mainstream and as broad as we can make it. When a game goes on the Pro Circuit, it's because it's one that we believe we can help make that a reality.
SC2 perhaps needs the least help of any title we've hosted, and I certainly don't need to tell you that. But not being true to our roots is NOT MLG's way of doing things.
Not asking you to assume we're going to get it right, or trust us or any other nonsense. Just asking that you watch and see what we do. Totally open and willing to listen to criticisms (or praise, as rare as that is in our world :D). Stay tuned, we'll be announcing shortly a few interesting items.
On August 05 2010 11:54 MLG_Lee wrote: RE: all the open registration criticisms.
Your points are all valid, but you're also missing MLG's perspective.
The intent of open registration is enable ANYONE who wants to come to an MLG to be able to come and compete. But as with WoW and Halo, the matches we broadcast are of the pro's. MLG's about making competitive gaming as big and as mainstream and as broad as we can make it. When a game goes on the Pro Circuit, it's because it's one that we believe we can help make that a reality.
SC2 perhaps needs the least help of any title we've hosted, and I certainly don't need to tell you that. But not being true to our roots is NOT MLG's way of doing things.
Not asking you to assume we're going to get it right, or trust us or any other nonsense. Just asking that you watch and see what we do. Totally open and willing to listen to criticisms (or praise, as rare as that is in our world :D). Stay tuned, we'll be announcing shortly a few interesting items.
This thread is hilarious - half of the replies are people confusing what everyone is arguing about.
I think the rules look fine. I hope you reconsider the map pool before your next open tournament, and some of the rules regarding equipment/SC2 settings could use further clarification and specificity. Jinro already brought up all the questions I have with those rules -
8. All User Interface setups will be confined to the Blizzard default options.
What does this mean? I can't change settings in the game, or I can't use 3rd party tools to modify the UI?
Can I change mouse sensitivity in game? Im pretty sure I wouldnt be able to play properly if I didn't get to change my mouse sensitivity (the one in game - the default is set extremely low).
I played in a tournament the other day, and changing all the settings to what I like, took like 30 seconds before each game - I don't see how it's a problem.
I might go as a spectator since I will be in Raleigh this August, any other TLers going? And are spectator passes something that sells out, will I need to purchase it soon?
Why? Can I change things like HP bars being always on or not, or building grids?
Look for clarification on these questions early next week.
What does this mean? I can't change settings in the game, or I can't use 3rd party tools to modify the UI?
You definitely can't use 3rd party tools or directly edit the config files. You can change UI and game settings in the game. Just not Video/graphics settings from the settings we're going to be using on all gaming rigs (These will be released next week).
Can I change mouse sensitivity in game? Im pretty sure I wouldnt be able to play properly if I didn't get to change my mouse sensitivity (the one in game - the default is set extremely low).
You can change the mouse sensitivity. That would be extra-ordinarily stupid if you couldn't ;p
And are spectator passes something that sells out, will I need to purchase it soon?
You can get spec passes at the door, but depending on when you arrive, I would recommend buying them online so that you can just pick them up (as opposed to having to wait in line to purchase).
okay, now I know why MLG is a joke. And no wonder they never caught in the CS community, CEVO, CAL, CPL and ESEA all have much better systems than MLG does.
On August 05 2010 13:08 0mar wrote: okay, now I know why MLG is a joke. And no wonder they never caught in the CS community, CEVO, CAL, CPL and ESEA all have much better systems than MLG does.
On August 05 2010 07:32 KillerSOS wrote: That doesn't make my point any less true.
Other than the fact that in 8 years of operation, issues of sponsorship being prohibitive would have come up in other games?
That's not what he's protesting, but the batshit insane "first come first serve" registration. No one wants to see 32 random jobbers play, we want to see high level games between proven A-class players.
Well MLG is open registration.
There are plenty of other invitational tournaments that you can watch if you don't like this one.
That's not really an argument in favor of open registration, it's an argument in favor of not watching it... lol.
Exactly, if you don't like it don't watch it. They decided to do open registration so everyone needs to stop bitching about it.
You don't really get it, that argument could be applied to any bad decision.
I don't think it's a bad decision, and neither does MLG. That's what matters.
No, you're hoping to win the tourney because the strongest NA players weren't able to enter. That is your only reason and your only motive to argue the point. It's pretty sad.
It's pretty sad that you jump to that conclusion.
Everyone had an equal opportunity to join, even the strongest NA players. I've stated multiple times i'm going to go play no matter what, I just don't like the thought of it being open registration at first and then maybe being changed because people complained about not getting in.
On August 05 2010 12:37 MLG_Lee wrote: Sorry -- just saw this:
Why? Can I change things like HP bars being always on or not, or building grids?
Look for clarification on these questions early next week.
What does this mean? I can't change settings in the game, or I can't use 3rd party tools to modify the UI?
You definitely can't use 3rd party tools or directly edit the config files. You can change UI and game settings in the game. Just not Video/graphics settings from the settings we're going to be using on all gaming rigs (These will be released next week).
Can I change mouse sensitivity in game? Im pretty sure I wouldnt be able to play properly if I didn't get to change my mouse sensitivity (the one in game - the default is set extremely low).
You can change the mouse sensitivity. That would be extra-ordinarily stupid if you couldn't ;p
well, not being able to change hp bars/building grids/gamma and other settings that might fall under video or graphics settings would be almost as stupid, things like that can have just as big of an effect on the play.
the graphics settings themselves, actually, can have a bigger effect. the game looks very different on low vs ultra settings and if you're used to one or the other it will definitely cause problems in your play if you cant adjust it.
i dont really see any reason to not allow players to change any in game settings.
On August 04 2010 07:52 Agh wrote: Lee what monitors will players be using?
HP 20" 2ms LCDs. 1680x1040 max res.
Yuck. How does a competitive gaming organisation like MLG not invest at the least in 120Hz LCDs?
Also, re: open registration, you mention that you only broadcast games of the 'pros'. The problem is, how many of these 32 players who had the best luck on clicking refresh at the right time are going to be pros? I would wager zero.
On August 05 2010 07:54 Ryuu314 wrote: Rule 16 of the gameplay rules seem kinda iffy to me. Although it's very rare that such a situation would ever happen and this might even be a non-issue, I can still see many cases where that really shouldn't be the case.
Such as the Stork v. GGPlay game like 2 years ago that lasted like...90 minutes. At the end of the game, the entire map was mined out and nothing was being killed, but that idle time was actually extremely important for Stork. He was using that time to recharge all his shields and energy before making a final push to eliminate GGPlay. If rule 16 was in place, Stork would never have won that game.
Rule should be modified or a new rule made to include no player is capable of ending the game (i.e. has units that can harm the other opponents buildings). But that would require decision making on the refs part or explicitly write out a long list of conditions. A lot of terran lift off draws don't always have the map mined out. But I think this rule is mostly so players don't try to drag it out pointlessly (e.g. they both need superior positioning to win the last battle, but neither are moving to lose it).
On August 04 2010 07:52 Agh wrote: Lee what monitors will players be using?
HP 20" 2ms LCDs. 1680x1040 max res.
Yuck. How does a competitive gaming organisation like MLG not invest at the least in 120Hz LCDs?
Also, re: open registration, you mention that you only broadcast games of the 'pros'. The problem is, how many of these 32 players who had the best luck on clicking refresh at the right time are going to be pros? I would wager zero.
Well I *think* players who placed high in the last event are automatically given a spot for the next one. So... basically you got to start somewhere. It will work itself out.
On August 05 2010 13:08 0mar wrote: okay, now I know why MLG is a joke. And no wonder they never caught in the CS community, CEVO, CAL, CPL and ESEA all have much better systems than MLG does.
It MIGHT have something to do with MLG never even trying to host CS? Also I'd take hosting tournaments with your whining over going bankrupt and meeting your lofty expectations any day. People need to remember this is MLG's FIRST SC tournament and only the 2nd PC title that they've used. The resources that they have right now probably aren't ideal but breaking the bank to host a tournament of korean standards isn't viable. Maybe if SC2 catches on in North America you can start to expect Kespa quality tournaments, but right now the money is just not there and you'll have to wait until SC2 starts proving it can bring in income for MLG before they can get it perfect.
On August 05 2010 07:54 Ryuu314 wrote: Rule 16 of the gameplay rules seem kinda iffy to me. Although it's very rare that such a situation would ever happen and this might even be a non-issue, I can still see many cases where that really shouldn't be the case.
Such as the Stork v. GGPlay game like 2 years ago that lasted like...90 minutes. At the end of the game, the entire map was mined out and nothing was being killed, but that idle time was actually extremely important for Stork. He was using that time to recharge all his shields and energy before making a final push to eliminate GGPlay. If rule 16 was in place, Stork would never have won that game.
Rule should be modified or a new rule made to include no player is capable of ending the game (i.e. has units that can harm the other opponents buildings). But that would require decision making on the refs part or explicitly write out a long list of conditions. A lot of terran lift off draws don't always have the map mined out. But I think this rule is mostly so players don't try to drag it out pointlessly (e.g. they both need superior positioning to win the last battle, but neither are moving to lose it).
A lift off draw is more of a situation where the match should be replayed if neither players wishes to engage.
On August 05 2010 13:08 0mar wrote: okay, now I know why MLG is a joke. And no wonder they never caught in the CS community, CEVO, CAL, CPL and ESEA all have much better systems than MLG does.
It MIGHT have something to do with MLG never even trying to host CS? Also I'd take hosting tournaments with your whining over going bankrupt and meeting your lofty expectations any day. People need to remember this is MLG's FIRST SC tournament and only the 2nd PC title that they've used. The resources that they have right now probably aren't ideal but breaking the bank to host a tournament of korean standards isn't viable. Maybe if SC2 catches on in North America you can start to expect Kespa quality tournaments, but right now the money is just not there and you'll have to wait until SC2 starts proving it can bring in income for MLG before they can get it perfect.
On August 05 2010 12:37 MLG_Lee wrote: Sorry -- just saw this:
Why? Can I change things like HP bars being always on or not, or building grids?
Look for clarification on these questions early next week.
What does this mean? I can't change settings in the game, or I can't use 3rd party tools to modify the UI?
You definitely can't use 3rd party tools or directly edit the config files. You can change UI and game settings in the game. Just not Video/graphics settings from the settings we're going to be using on all gaming rigs (These will be released next week).
Can I change mouse sensitivity in game? Im pretty sure I wouldnt be able to play properly if I didn't get to change my mouse sensitivity (the one in game - the default is set extremely low).
You can change the mouse sensitivity. That would be extra-ordinarily stupid if you couldn't ;p
And are spectator passes something that sells out, will I need to purchase it soon?
You can get spec passes at the door, but depending on when you arrive, I would recommend buying them online so that you can just pick them up (as opposed to having to wait in line to purchase).
When you have a chance could you rephrase all of this because it's very confusing? Hp bars and building grids are settings in the option menu and have nothing to do with altering the hardware driver. At the top you said you need clarification but afterward in the following section you lead on to that changing any of that would be fine.
On August 05 2010 12:37 MLG_Lee wrote: Sorry -- just saw this:
Why? Can I change things like HP bars being always on or not, or building grids?
Look for clarification on these questions early next week.
What does this mean? I can't change settings in the game, or I can't use 3rd party tools to modify the UI?
You definitely can't use 3rd party tools or directly edit the config files. You can change UI and game settings in the game. Just not Video/graphics settings from the settings we're going to be using on all gaming rigs (These will be released next week).
Can I change mouse sensitivity in game? Im pretty sure I wouldnt be able to play properly if I didn't get to change my mouse sensitivity (the one in game - the default is set extremely low).
You can change the mouse sensitivity. That would be extra-ordinarily stupid if you couldn't ;p
well, not being able to change hp bars/building grids/gamma and other settings that might fall under video or graphics settings would be almost as stupid, things like that can have just as big of an effect on the play.
the graphics settings themselves, actually, can have a bigger effect. the game looks very different on low vs ultra settings and if you're used to one or the other it will definitely cause problems in your play if you cant adjust it.
i dont really see any reason to not allow players to change any in game settings.
idra basically nails it here. When I read this statement from Lee, "That would be extra-ordinarily stupid if you couldn't ;p," it made me think about how MLG is going to realize how stupid some of their current rules actually are after going through this first tour stop. I literally shot a bit of saliva on my monitor in laughter in immediate reaction to Lee's post. Regarding video and sound settings, you simply have to let the user pick his own preferences; this is how it is in PC gaming, especially at a "professional" level. I quoted professional in the previous sentence, because this initial event will be anything but professional. I'm happy to see at least a few known people got passes (i.e. joseki), but the promises of epics matches between top players are just wishful thinking for true SC2 fans. Unfortunately, I think that most of the games will be lopsided lulzfests, analogous to Backpack's struggle to form an argument in this thread.
Also, I'm a bit surprised that no one has quoted this yet, or maybe I just missed it...
2010 Pro Circuit Registration: StarCraft 2 Events
1. Players who finish in the top 16 of an Event will be given a Reserved Player Pass for the StarCraft 2 Event at the next Pro Circuit Competition.
So finishing in the top 50% guarantees you a pass for the next tour stop if you wish to accept it? Unless you expand the field, seeing only 16 new faces will be extremely meh.
I think its important you let players choose between different levels of graphics settings. Some players used to low settings would play much worse on ultra and vice-versa. The change in the look of the game is so dramatic that it shouldn't be locked.
I think the fact that everything has to be MLG dissapoints me it would have been better if they let uniforms and team sponsors. I would have loved to see some team uniforms out there and I think that this might hinder the progress of sc2 as a e-sport
I am 99 percent sure mlg would allow players to change in-game graphics. I suspect the rule as the computer graphics settings. I really just cannot see a reason why they would disallow something as easy as graphics located in an in-game menu.
I don't really get it. Competitive gaming survives off sponsorship. You can't have a very successful scene if you limit sponsors. They will end up making more money off their sponsors if they let teams promote their sponsors cause the scene will be bigger. Players are supposed to survive off of 10$ a month with a small chance of getting money at a tournament even if your a top 5 player.
Also they are noobs for still having desert oasis.
On August 05 2010 16:26 CagedMind wrote: I don't really get it. Competitive gaming survives off sponsorship. You can't have a very successful scene if you limit sponsors. They will end up making more money off their sponsors if they let teams promote their sponsors cause the scene will be bigger. Players are supposed to survive off of 10$ a month with a small chance of getting money at a tournament even if your a top 5 player.
Also they are noobs for still having desert oasis.
I agree. But, what player wouldn't veto Desert Oasis? Most of them don't practice on it. Plus MLG has a history of really epic games on Desert Oasis.
On August 06 2010 17:44 t3tsubo wrote: @ JP: If a player showed up to this with a Razer Naga (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=125623) and the keys were simple assigned to the numerical keys (aka 1 macro button = 1 keypress), would it be allowed?
Hey MLG bros: Underground casting with Infestor's (ala infested parasite or fungal from underground by using quick shift-casting) legal use of the game engine, or is that considered some kind of illegal bug that will get me DQ'd if I do it?
On August 08 2010 17:00 w_Ender_w wrote: Hey MLG bros: Underground casting with Infestor's (ala infested parasite or fungal from underground by using quick shift-casting) legal use of the game engine, or is that considered some kind of illegal bug that will get me DQ'd if I do it?
Will any of this be streamed? If so will that info be posted here or elsewhere?
I guess I'm pulling for Joseki on this one, without knowing any of the other competitors. Hot_bid and him owned me and my brother in our first ever beta match so there's a special place in my heart.
Most of the games should be pretty lame if the player pool is really as bad as everyone fears, but there's always room for miracles in this crazy game.
I agree with IdrA that why players can't change all of the graphic setups? I mean it's not it is some unfair advantage as the player itself would set it as he likes to play it. Many players like to play it on low and some on higher settings. It makes a huge difference that if you have played on low all the time and then you have to switch to high. It's just a stupid rule
On August 13 2010 17:01 Piski wrote: I agree with IdrA that why players can't change all of the graphic setups? I mean it's not it is some unfair advantage as the player itself would set it as he likes to play it. Many players like to play it on low and some on higher settings. It makes a huge difference that if you have played on low all the time and then you have to switch to high. It's just a stupid rule
its so people aren't sitting there for 25 min before every practice/match and messing with the settings... practice time is limited on day 1 halo 3 was hectic during practice time and I hated teams that went through and changed their names/tags, settings and each small detail, change your proper control settings and get on with the game.
On August 13 2010 17:01 Piski wrote: I agree with IdrA that why players can't change all of the graphic setups? I mean it's not it is some unfair advantage as the player itself would set it as he likes to play it. Many players like to play it on low and some on higher settings. It makes a huge difference that if you have played on low all the time and then you have to switch to high. It's just a stupid rule
its so people aren't sitting there for 25 min before every practice/match and messing with the settings... practice time is limited on day 1 halo 3 was hectic during practice time and I hated teams that went through and changed their names/tags, settings and each small detail, change your proper control settings and get on with the game.
25minutes? Have you even seen the sc2 graphics settings? It shouldn't take any more than 2 minutes.
EPT
)
