|
With Halo: Reach and StarCraft 2 passes set to go on sale on Tuesday, March 1, MLG is pleased to announce the new competition format for the 2011 Season.
Open Bracket/Championship Bracket
Like Halo, the Starcraft 2 competition will now be split up into an Open Bracket, and a Championship Bracket. The Top 16 ranked players heading into each Live Competition will be entered directly into the Championship Bracket, while the other 256 (max) players will be entered into the Open Bracket. 16 players from Open Bracket will join the top 16 ranked players to form a 32-man Championship Bracket. The 2011 season and initial rankings for the first event in Dallas will be based on the total points accumulated from the 2010 season.
Pool Play
The Top 16 ranked players in StarCraft 2 heading into each Live Competition will be divided into four pools of five players each. The fifth player in each pool will be derived from the four players that emerge from the Open Bracket undefeated. The Open Bracket format has not changed from the 2010 Season. It is still a double-elimination, best-of-three bracket.
Pool Play will begin on the Friday of each Pro Circuit Live Competition weekend, with the Top 16 players playing every other player in their pool in a best-of-five series. After Open Bracket play is complete and the undefeated competitors become the fifth player in each pool, they will then run the gauntlet, playing each player in the pool based on the current pool standings, beginning with the 4th Place player and ending with the 1st Place player.
The results of Pool Play will dictate where each team/player is placed in the Championship Bracket.
Pool Play Results
1st Place – Winners Bracket Semi-Finals
2nd Place – Losers Bracket Round 6
3rd Place – Losers Bracket Round 5
4th Place – Losers Bracket Round 4
5th Place – Losers Bracket Round 3
A simulated bracket can be seen at http://media.mlgpro.com/site/files/PoolPlaySimulated.htm
Once Pool Play is complete, the Championship Bracket Format is identical to the 2010 Season. The Bracket will play out until one player remains and is crowned Champion. Players that lose in the Open Bracket will be placed in the Championship Losers Bracket, based on the same criteria as the 2010 Season.
More details on specifics regarding Pool Play, including how pools are determined and tiebreakers, can be found in the Pro Circuit Section.
StarCraft 2 and Halo: Reach will Use the Same Competition Format
Both games will feature Open Brackets, Pool Play, and a Championship Bracket. The only major difference between the two is that StarCraft 2 will feature a best-of-three series in all portions of the tournament, while Halo: Reach will feature a best-of-three Open Bracket and a best-of-five Championship Bracket.
Open Bracket Results Now Carry Over to Championship Bracket Matches
If two teams meet in the Championship Bracket after meeting in the Open Bracket, they will play an extended series, taking the previous best-of-three results into account. Here is a quick rundown of the extended series specifics:
Best of 3 + Best of 3 = Best of 7
Best of 3 + Best of 5 = Best of 9
Best of 5 + Best of 5 = Best of 11
The Removal of Placement Rounds
Because of the way Pool Play works, there will be no more Placement Rounds within the Championship Bracket.
Why These Changes Have Been Made
The new Competition Format in 2011 will result in a more exciting and fair competition for all MLG teams. It will also produce more matches over the course of the weekend for fans around the globe. For more information on MLG Dallas, including Schedules, Rules/Settings, and a full rundown of the Competition Format, be sure to check out the Pro Circuit Section.
StarCraft 2 Competition Passes will go on sale in the MLG Store Tuesday at 7pm ET/01:00 CET. Don’t miss out!
|
Here are the points standings for the end of the MLG 2010 season, and seedings going into the first 2011 event in Dallas. Players move up a seed for each other player that doesn't show up. Only top 32 listed.
1. Liquid`HuK (P) - 2835
2. root.KiWiKaKi (P) - 2445
3. FnaticTT1 (P) - 2360
4. d.SeleCT (T) - 2200
5. LG.PainUser (T) - 1970
6. ROOT.drewbie (T) - 1925
7. Liquid`Tyler (P) - 1900
8. Liquid`Jinro (T) - 1800
9. root.SLush (Z) - 1720
10. root.qxc (T) - 1490
11. EG.IdrA (Z) - 1440
12. Alternate.Socke (P) - 1275
13. Liquid`Ret (Z) - 1150
14. Liquid`TLO (R) - 1050
15. LG.Agh (P) - 1040
16. EG.Machine (Z) - 975
------
17. LG.Nadagast (T) - 965
18. EG.iNcontroL (P) - 920
19. ajtls (T) - 850
20. d.SjoW (T) - 700
21. FnaticGretorp (T) - 680
22. CauthonLuck (T) - 650
23. Masq (T) - 620
24. LG.iNkA (T) - 565
25. avilo (T) - 560
25. EG.LzGaMeR (T) - 560
27. Silver (T) - 310
28. LG.ReSpOnSe (P) - 290
29. FnaticFenix (T) - 240
30. FnaticSen (Z) - 240
31. Liquid`Nazgul (P) - 240
32. root.CatZ (Z) - 235
So if all 32 of these players show up, HuK will be first seed in the Championship Bracket/Groups, and Nadagast will be first seed in the Open Bracket. Initial Championship Bracket Pool Play will look like this:
Group A: HuK (1), Jinro (8), SLush (9), Machine (16)
Group B: KiWiKaKi (2), Tyler (7), qxc (10), Agh (15)
Group C: TT1 (3), Drewbie (6), IdrA (11), TLO (14)
Group D: SeleCt (4), PainUser (5), Socke (12), Ret (13)
Each group will have one player added to it, the four remaining players left from the Open Bracket. Seed 17 will be in Group A, Seed 18 in Group B, Seed 19 in Group C, and Seed 20 in Group D.
As a reference, here is the point structure for last year's season and this upcoming season:
Regular Season Competitions:
1st = 1200 - 9th = 490 - 17th = 210 - 25th = 90 - 33rd-40th = 6
2nd = 1000 - 10th = 460 - 18th = 200 - 26th = 80 - 41st-48th = 4
3rd = 900 - 11th = 430 - 19th = 190 - 27th = 70
4th = 800 - 12th = 400 - 20th = 180 - 28th = 60
5th = 700 - 13th = 340 - 21st = 140 - 29th = 40
6th = 650 - 14th = 310 - 22nd = 130 - 30th = 30
7th = 600 - 15th = 280 - 23rd = 120 - 31st = 20
8th = 550 - 16th = 250 - 24th = 110 - 32nd = 10
National Championship Competition:
1st = 1800 - 9th = 735 - 17th = 315 - 25th = 135 - 33rd-40th = 9
2nd = 1500 - 10th = 690 - 18th = 300 - 26th = 120 - 41st-48th = 6
3rd = 1350 - 11th = 645 - 19th = 285 - 27th = 105
4th = 1200 - 12th = 600 - 20th = 270 - 28th = 90
5th = 1050 - 13th = 510 - 21st = 210 - 29th = 60
6th = 975 - 14th = 465 - 22nd = 195 - 30th = 45
7th = 900 - 15th = 420 - 23rd = 180 - 31st = 30
8th = 825 - 16th = 375 - 24th = 165 - 32nd = 15
|
Now the big question is: What about maps? Will the map pool be changed? If so, how?
|
This just shows that MLG wants to top the GSL....
in complexity
|
On February 26 2011 09:08 twiitar wrote:
Now the big question is: What about maps?
Yeah, sticking to the same maps the ENTIRE year was a mistake last year.
Remember how Kulas Ravine was still in the map pool at MLG Dallas?
|
This seems like a lot of games for one weekend, what percentage of these games will we be seeing casted?
|
So after the first MLG, do last years results matter anymore? I'd guess you'd start only using 2011 points?
|
why is there a M. in front of my name? :[
|
Wait, after all the complaints about extended series you still kept it? Seriously?
Yeah, and i also didn't notice the final is still a best of 3. Sigh.
Atleast give us a best of 5 final. Best of 3 is extremely underwhelming.
|
On February 26 2011 09:10 HelloSon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:08 twiitar wrote:
Now the big question is: What about maps? Yeah, sticking to the same maps the ENTIRE year was a mistake last year. Remember how Kulas Ravine was still in the map pool at MLG Dallas?
Well just hope they dont use many of the new ladder maps that come out now 
|
On February 26 2011 09:11 Socke wrote:
why is there a M. in front of my name? :[
It's short for Man. Like a title.
Now presenting, All That Is Man.... SOCKE!
|
I don't mind the extended series (yeah yawn that old topic), but are the finals really bo3 :O
|
The top 16 list of players is quite impressive. So pumped for the new season!
|
On February 26 2011 09:12 Karthane wrote:
Wait, after all the complaints about extended series you still kept it? Seriously?
half of the community hated it and other half liked it.
Also god damn it Slasher.
|
On February 26 2011 09:04 Slasher wrote:
Group A: HuK (1), Jinro, SLush, Machine
Group B: KiWiKaKi, Tyler, qxc, Agh
Group C: Xeris, Drewbie, IdrA, TLO
Group D: SeleCt, PainUser, Socke, Ret
gogo Xeris
|
On February 26 2011 09:11 Socke wrote:
why is there a M. in front of my name? :[
Fixed.
|
Extended series  . But I will still watch. Thanks for the info.
|
On February 26 2011 09:14 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:12 Karthane wrote:
Wait, after all the complaints about extended series you still kept it? Seriously? half of the community hated it and other half liked it. Also god damn it Slasher.
Pretty sure a large majority of the community hated it, but it doesn't really matter at this point.
|
On February 26 2011 09:14 SmoKim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:04 Slasher wrote:
Group A: HuK (1), Jinro, SLush, Machine
Group B: KiWiKaKi, Tyler, qxc, Agh
Group C: Xeris, Drewbie, IdrA, TLO
Group D: SeleCt, PainUser, Socke, Ret
gogo Xeris
Haha thats TT1
|
I don't really see the whole issue with extended series. Yeah, if the games were held at entirely different times where training between matches mattered, it would be a problem. In MLG however, they're held in the same or next day.
|
On February 26 2011 09:11 Socke wrote:
why is there a M. in front of my name? :[
Meister Socke, gepriesen seist du!
|
lololol the extended series stayed in. You can't fault them for sticking to their guns! It will be great anyway, just a minor detail in a solid event. American SC2 fighting!!!!!
|
Maps will be announced sometime next week.
|
I dont like this as it becomes extremely difficult for newcomers to get into the championship bracket. For my taste it should be at least half of players in the championship bracket coming from the open bracket. That way the point leaders would still have a huge advantage.
With a nearly closed system like this it becomes quite unattractive for players from abroad or far away places in the USA to travel to a MLG if the are not in the TOP 16.
I do like the group stage with bo3 though. Also the new extended series as it is now makes at least some sense.
On February 26 2011 09:19 imPERSONater wrote:
lololol the extended series stayed in. You can't fault them for sticking to their guns! It will be great anyway, just a minor detail in a solid event. American SC2 fighting!!!!!
Nope, its much less retarded now than it was before.
|
I can't believe I don't understand these pool play bracket shenanigans.
I'm usually pretty good with this stuff. >_>
Also, extended series is basically bullshit and I don't understand the rationale behind it at all.
|
Xeris is really TT1 right?
|
2629 Posts
If the Pool Phase plays on Friday, when is the Open Bracket RO256->RO4 being played ? Simultaneously ? Also, making the four OB semifinalists play 6 BO3s and then 4 BO5s consecutively sounds extremely harsh.
|
On February 26 2011 09:19 Slasher wrote:
Maps will be announced sometime next week.
Awesome. What about "change the map pool over the course of the season", seeing as how getting imbalanced/race favouring/broken/overused maps out of the pool as quick as possible should be an obligation of any SC2 league? Any hope for that? Or will that also be announced as part of the map announcement?
|
Where is the list of Ranked points for players?
|
Wow, I'm not a fan of the open bracket/championship bracket thing coming to sc2. What led to that format being adopted for sc2 this year? Why do the top 16 deserve to get a bye through a 64 person tournament and go straight to pool play (since 4 out of the open 256 bracket will make it to pool play)? I'm guessing that in Halo you probably have a fair idea of who the actual top 16 teams are, but can you really say the same thing for sc2?
|
So does pool basically mean group?
|
What?
I read that post 5 times and i dont understand anything at all.
|
This is pretty confusing.
So pool play has 20 players, 16 of which are seeded?
|
On February 26 2011 09:19 Redox wrote:I dont like this as it becomes extremely difficult for newcomers to get into the championship bracket. For my taste it should be at least half of players in the championship bracket coming from the open bracket. That way the point leaders would still have a huge advantage. With a nearly closed system like this it becomes quite unattractive for players from abroad or far away places in the USA to travel to a MLG if the are not in the TOP 16. I do like the group stage with bo3 though. Also the new extended series as it is now makes at least some sense. Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:19 imPERSONater wrote:
lololol the extended series stayed in. You can't fault them for sticking to their guns! It will be great anyway, just a minor detail in a solid event. American SC2 fighting!!!!! Nope, its much less retarded now than it was before.
Half of the Championship bracket is coming from the open bracket, it's just if you were in the loser's bracket of the open bracket, you get put into the loser's bracket of the championship bracket.
|
Seems like a pretty good system to me since the top players don't have to wade through a million matches, and it is still an open competition that anyone can enter (which i reallly like the concept of).
As far as I understand the extended series is a feature of winners bracket/ losers bracket system, which is seen as a more fair system than straight knock out since you might face the overall winner in the very first round.
|
United States123 Posts
On February 26 2011 09:19 Redox wrote:I dont like this as it becomes extremely difficult for newcomers to get into the championship bracket. For my taste it should be at least half of players in the championship bracket coming from the open bracket. That way the point leaders would still have a huge advantage. With a nearly closed system like this it becomes quite unattractive for players from abroad or far away places in the USA to travel to a MLG if the are not in the TOP 16. I do like the group stage with bo3 though. Also the new extended series as it is now makes at least some sense. Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:19 imPERSONater wrote:
lololol the extended series stayed in. You can't fault them for sticking to their guns! It will be great anyway, just a minor detail in a solid event. American SC2 fighting!!!!! Nope, its much less retarded now than it was before.
The Championship Bracket features 32 total players. Yes, only four have a chance to get into Pool Play, but the other 12 players who advanced from the Open Bracket with a loss are placed into the Championship Losers Bracket.
|
No moar extended series pleaaase!! It has the potential of making even finals suck horribly...
|
are you seriously taking extended series a step further and making it apply through tournaments? =\
|
can you edit out all the "team/player" to just "player" so it tailors it only to SC2 and not also Halo for people that may get confused?
|
I'm disappointed to see extended series is still around and the final is still a Bo3, but I suppose we'll just have to live with it.
Overall things are looking great for 2011; here's hoping we'll see some epic games!
|
On February 26 2011 09:09 Hoju wrote:
This just shows that MLG wants to top the GSL....
in complexity
if the halo people understand it, we can too!
|
United States7481 Posts
Both games will feature Open Brackets, Pool Play, and a Championship Bracket. The only major difference between the two is that StarCraft 2 will feature a best-of-three series in all portions of the tournament,
Am I reading this correctly? even the finals will be bo3 unless they're an extended bo7?
|
This kind of sucks, I'm going to MLG Dallas this year and I was looking forward to getting destroyed by the top players in my first two series. Now the top 16 get byes? Blah
|
On February 26 2011 09:26 Antoine wrote:Show nested quote +Both games will feature Open Brackets, Pool Play, and a Championship Bracket. The only major difference between the two is that StarCraft 2 will feature a best-of-three series in all portions of the tournament, Am I reading this correctly? even the finals will be bo3 unless they're an extended bo7?
That appears to be correct
It's especially surprising given that Halo has a Bo5 finals, and MLG seems to want to copy everything about the sc2 format from Halo.
(It was that way last season too.)
|
Ok, so you start out with 256 players in the Open tournament.
How many of those advance into the Championship Bracket, to be added to the 16 seeds? 4? 12? 16?
What's the point of pool play? How many games are those on top? Will only the Championship 32 man bracket be televised?
so confused
Bo3 finals and extended series being back. Sigh.
|
United States13896 Posts
Bo3 finals? Not a fan of that. I don't understand this at all. Really, this whole format is so confusing in general, but I guess I'll just have to get used to it. After time I (think I) understand the GSL format so eventually I'll understand this.
|
Uh.....they do realize that a BO3 in SC2 can last as long as 2 hours, and no I'm not suggesting a BO1 format in the open bracket, but this isn't halo, you won't be able to finish an open bracket and a championship bracket in one weekend.
|
Finals as Bo3, extended series and only casting a small proportion of all the matches...MLG i thought you could change. Hopefully you wont disappoint me again with map selections.
|
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
Slasher you've been watching/participating/reporting esport for ages, cant you understand how stupid this sounds?
|
The finals will be a best of three? Am I hearing this right? Wow...Also, the 16 people in the championship will have a huge advantage coming into the tournament. With 5 liquid players, I'm confident to say that the next champion will come from TL.
|
On February 26 2011 09:23 MLG-Lies wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:19 Redox wrote:I dont like this as it becomes extremely difficult for newcomers to get into the championship bracket. For my taste it should be at least half of players in the championship bracket coming from the open bracket. That way the point leaders would still have a huge advantage. With a nearly closed system like this it becomes quite unattractive for players from abroad or far away places in the USA to travel to a MLG if the are not in the TOP 16. I do like the group stage with bo3 though. Also the new extended series as it is now makes at least some sense. On February 26 2011 09:19 imPERSONater wrote:
lololol the extended series stayed in. You can't fault them for sticking to their guns! It will be great anyway, just a minor detail in a solid event. American SC2 fighting!!!!! Nope, its much less retarded now than it was before. The Championship Bracket features 32 total players. Yes, only four have a chance to get into Pool Play, but the other 12 players who advanced from the Open Bracket with a loss are placed into the Championship Losers Bracket.
Thanks, I overread that there is a loser bracket. That is somewhat better then. nd it means there will be a shitload of games. :D
But still its quite difficult for new players that are not in the TOP16. And the people that are already in have MUCH better chances of making points and thereby staying in TOP16.
But I guess its part of your concept to have a pool of known players that we see every tournament.
|
Gotta say...these sound pretty awful.
Your tournament, your rules though. Good luck with it.
|
Lol this is pretty ridiculous. You're leaving in double elimination AND extended series, and grossly overcomplicating the whole deal.
I can't see how seeding 16 players and leaving "the rest" to play in a gigantic open tournament is going to be exciting to watch in the early rounds. Previous MLGs were fun and exciting and filled with big matches right from the first round, I don't see that happening here.
|
On February 26 2011 09:32 ptbl wrote:
The finals will be a best of three? Am I hearing this right? Wow...Also, the 16 people in the championship will have a huge advantage coming into the tournament. With 5 liquid players, I'm confident to say that the next champion will come from TL.
Where did you read finals bo3? No way it will be like that.
Also in the section about extended series they talk about what happens to extended bo5 series.
|
On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
Slasher you've been watching/participating/reporting esport for ages, cant you understand how stupid this sounds?
won't be boring for spectators as the top 16 will play each other right away while the open bracket is going on...
but it is indeed very difficult to crack the top as a new comer with no points
|
|
|
On February 26 2011 09:35 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:32 ptbl wrote:
The finals will be a best of three? Am I hearing this right? Wow...Also, the 16 people in the championship will have a huge advantage coming into the tournament. With 5 liquid players, I'm confident to say that the next champion will come from TL. Where did you read finals bo3? No way it will be like that. Also in the section about extended series they talk about what happens to extended bo5 series.
Both games will feature Open Brackets, Pool Play, and a Championship Bracket. The only major difference between the two is that StarCraft 2 will feature a best-of-three series in all portions of the tournament,
|
On February 26 2011 09:34 Weasel- wrote:
Lol this is pretty ridiculous. You're leaving in double elimination AND extended series, and grossly overcomplicating the whole deal.
I can't see how seeding 16 players and leaving "the rest" to play in a gigantic open tournament is going to be exciting to watch in the early rounds. Previous MLGs were fun and exciting and filled with big matches right from the first round, I don't see that happening here.
Because a Group with Huk AND Jinro won't be exciting. The loss of excitement will be that players like Agh won't be there to stir things up. It's effectively a top 16 only club. They'll likely not even cast the lower games.
|
Here is a more condensed version of this rather than a huge fully drawn bracket:
Open Open
Winners Losers
Bracket Bracket
1 256
2 128 1 128 -- 128 W1 losers
2 128 -- 64 L1 winners vs 64 W2 losers
3 64 3 64 -- 64 L2 winners
4 64 -- 32 L3 winners vs 32 W3 losers
4 32 5 32 -- 32 L4 winners
6 32 -- 16 L5 winners vs 16 W4 losers
5 16 7 16 -- 16 L6 winners
8 16 -- 8 L7 winners vs 8 W5 losers
6 8 9 8 -- 8 L8 winners (aka L1)
10 8 -- 4 L9 winners vs 4 L6 losers (aka L2)
Pool play -- 16 seeds + 4 W6 winners
11 8 -- 4 L10 winners vs 5th Place from Pools (aka L3)
12 8 -- 4 L11 winners vs 4th Place from Pools
13 8 -- 4 L12 winners vs 3rd Place from Pools
14 8 -- 4 L13 winners vs 2nd Place from Pools
1 4 15 4 -- 4 L14 winners
16 4 -- 2 L15 winners vs 2 WB Semis losers
2 2 17 2 -- 2 L16 winners
18 2 -- 1 L17 winner vs 1 WB Finals loser
Grand Final -- L18 winner vs Pool winners champ
If you start in the open and win 6 straight rounds, you get to the Pool Play with the top 16 seeds.
If you start in the open and lose at some point, you need to keep winning and when you reach losers round 11 (MLG calls this L3), you start playing the Pool play people, starting from 5th, working up to 2nd, etc.
|
way too complicated they should have kept the double elimination format and no seeds
|
It appears MLG didn't particularly care about the rather unanimous feedback from SC2 community. Shame.
|
I love this, I don't have to see Idra facing some random in a first few rounds. I do not want a player I got to know last season losing to hijinks 2 rounds into open bracket. Spectators always get to see the well known players play each other. If you see the same people over and over, back story develops. It may not be ideal for foreigners/Koreans who aren't in the top 16, but I can deal with that.
|
On February 26 2011 09:19 Slasher wrote:
Maps will be announced sometime next week.
Hey Slasher whats the status of Quake in MLG? Sundance already told me he had a couple meetings with id already.
|
It kind of feels like MLG is trying to have an entire season of code A+S in one weekend and I really think this tournament structure will make it really unattractive for euros/koreans.
|
On February 26 2011 09:35 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
Slasher you've been watching/participating/reporting esport for ages, cant you understand how stupid this sounds? won't be boring for spectators as the top 16 will play each other right away while the open bracket is going on... but it is indeed very difficult to crack the top as a new comer with no points
Well then no one will care about the 256 and only championship bracket. Like seriously, why not do an open double elim bracket where past players get seeded high and face people who arent seeded...
If they are truly the best ,then the should beat non-seeded players easy...
|
On February 26 2011 09:40 Blondinbengt wrote:
It kind of feels like MLG is trying to have an entire season of code A+S in one weekend and I really think this tournament structure will make it really unattractive for euros/koreans.
My thoughts exactly, the number of game a player needs to play in a day to get into the championship is insane.
|
On February 26 2011 09:41 JoxxOr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:35 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
Slasher you've been watching/participating/reporting esport for ages, cant you understand how stupid this sounds? won't be boring for spectators as the top 16 will play each other right away while the open bracket is going on... but it is indeed very difficult to crack the top as a new comer with no points Well then no one will care about the 256 and only championship bracket. Like seriously, why not do an open double elim bracket where past players get seeded high and face people who arent seeded... If they are truly the best ,then the should beat non-seeded players easy...
Yep. Some of my favorite games were seeing the randoms do well and the like. Guess they'll be none of that anymore.
|
I like the new format. It means I won't have to watch my favorite players wade through cheesy games and noobs. Seeding is vital too for any competitive experience.
|
On February 26 2011 09:41 JoxxOr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:35 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
Slasher you've been watching/participating/reporting esport for ages, cant you understand how stupid this sounds? won't be boring for spectators as the top 16 will play each other right away while the open bracket is going on... but it is indeed very difficult to crack the top as a new comer with no points Well then no one will care about the 256 and only championship bracket. Like seriously, why not do an open double elim bracket where past players get seeded high and face people who arent seeded... If they are truly the best ,then the should beat non-seeded players easy...
You're not supposed to care about the open bracket early rounds. The open bracket early rounds by their nature will have a lot of people who aren't of high quality that nobody will really want to watch. So instead you shift your focus elsewhere.
I like the format a decent amount, don't love it. My bigger issue is the handling of seeds after only 1/2 of a season. I mean, it would take a full season, but at the same time I don't think they want to sit with their hands in their pockets another year waiting for things to get sorted out.
|
I really thought MLG wanted Koreans and Europeans to participate in the tournament. With the tournament structure, it gives less incentive from people who are not in the top 16 to participate in MLG.
|
On February 26 2011 09:04 Slasher wrote:
If two teams meet in the Championship Bracket after meeting in the Open Bracket, they will play an extended series
Was this copy pasted from the Halo rules?
No but seriously, I don't like this system. Being one of the top16 players is a huge advantage.The distinction between the 16th ranked player and the 17th ranked player is almost non-existent, but the 16th ranked player will, with almost absolute certainty, do much better in the tournament. It's not competition on an even footing, so I don't like it. The whole point of competing is that you do it in a fair way, where the same rules applies to everyone. If you are the best then you will win. You shouldn't get better results because the tournament favoured you.
When you seed someone that's not changing the terms on which you compete, but when you say that this player has ton win 10 games more to win the tournament then the accomplishment of winning is not equal for everyone. It's like if the reigning champion got an extra life in the tournament, just 'cause. It's silly.
On February 26 2011 09:04 Slasher wrote:
Both games will feature Open Brackets, Pool Play, and a Championship Bracket. The only major difference between the two is that StarCraft 2 will feature a best-of-three series in all portions of the tournament, while Halo: Reach will feature a best-of-three Open Bracket and a best-of-five Championship Bracket.
Including finals? What about pool play? There you explicitly stated Bo5
|
On February 26 2011 09:43 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:41 JoxxOr wrote:On February 26 2011 09:35 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
Slasher you've been watching/participating/reporting esport for ages, cant you understand how stupid this sounds? won't be boring for spectators as the top 16 will play each other right away while the open bracket is going on... but it is indeed very difficult to crack the top as a new comer with no points Well then no one will care about the 256 and only championship bracket. Like seriously, why not do an open double elim bracket where past players get seeded high and face people who arent seeded... If they are truly the best ,then the should beat non-seeded players easy... You're not supposed to care about the open bracket early rounds. The open bracket early rounds by their nature will have a lot of people who aren't of high quality that nobody will really want to watch. So instead you shift your focus elsewhere. I like the format a decent amount, don't love it. My bigger issue is the handling of seeds after only 1/2 of a season. I mean, it would take a full season, but at the same time I don't think they want to sit with their hands in their pockets another year waiting for things to get sorted out.
Yeah, but this also means top level Europeans and Koreans will not participate in MLG due to the unfavored nature of the Open Bracket.
|
On February 26 2011 09:26 Arch00 wrote:
This kind of sucks, I'm going to MLG Dallas this year and I was looking forward to getting destroyed by the top players in my first two series. Now the top 16 get byes? Blah
I would imagine there are other great players there to destroy you
|
On February 26 2011 09:42 Harbinger631 wrote:
I like the new format. It means I won't have to watch my favorite players wade through cheesy games and noobs. Seeding is vital too for any competitive experience.
Seeding? Sure. Excluding the vast majority of people at the tournament? I beg to differ.
|
On February 26 2011 09:45 ptbl wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:43 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On February 26 2011 09:41 JoxxOr wrote:On February 26 2011 09:35 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
Slasher you've been watching/participating/reporting esport for ages, cant you understand how stupid this sounds? won't be boring for spectators as the top 16 will play each other right away while the open bracket is going on... but it is indeed very difficult to crack the top as a new comer with no points Well then no one will care about the 256 and only championship bracket. Like seriously, why not do an open double elim bracket where past players get seeded high and face people who arent seeded... If they are truly the best ,then the should beat non-seeded players easy... You're not supposed to care about the open bracket early rounds. The open bracket early rounds by their nature will have a lot of people who aren't of high quality that nobody will really want to watch. So instead you shift your focus elsewhere. I like the format a decent amount, don't love it. My bigger issue is the handling of seeds after only 1/2 of a season. I mean, it would take a full season, but at the same time I don't think they want to sit with their hands in their pockets another year waiting for things to get sorted out. Yeah, but this also means top level Europeans and Koreans will not participate in MLG due to the unfavored nature of the Open Bracket.
Don't look at it as a hinderance, instead just look at it as a gigantic open bracket. They still have to play through an open bracket whether it's this format or the old format. The only difference is that some of their opponents wont have to. It's not much more of a gamble than it was before.
|
On February 26 2011 09:25 QuothTheRaven wrote:
I'm disappointed to see extended series is still around and the final is still a Bo3, but I suppose we'll just have to live with it.
Overall things are looking great for 2011; here's hoping we'll see some epic games!
Halo matches last like exactly 15 minutes each. Bo5 means at most 1 hr 15 minute finals.
Bo5 for starcraft can means 5 30 minute matches, or up to 3 hr finals.
Statistically, the odds of winning a best of 5 if you win a best of 3 is like 90%.
|
Anyone else excited to see group A play. Holy crap that is one stacked group of players.
|
On February 26 2011 09:41 JoxxOr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:35 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
Slasher you've been watching/participating/reporting esport for ages, cant you understand how stupid this sounds? won't be boring for spectators as the top 16 will play each other right away while the open bracket is going on... but it is indeed very difficult to crack the top as a new comer with no points Well then no one will care about the 256 and only championship bracket. Like seriously, why not do an open double elim bracket where past players get seeded high and face people who arent seeded... If they are truly the best ,then the should beat non-seeded players easy...
well if the nonseeded player truly deserve to be in the championship round, he will get there right?
it's the samething as the GSL protecting their top 16 code S players...
i kinda like this format... but to each his own... i like the fact i don't have to wait out the first hour or 2 of the MLG cuz either it's noob vs noob or a pro completely rolling a noob...
(when i say noob, they are all way better than me)
|
On February 26 2011 09:48 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:41 JoxxOr wrote:On February 26 2011 09:35 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
Slasher you've been watching/participating/reporting esport for ages, cant you understand how stupid this sounds? won't be boring for spectators as the top 16 will play each other right away while the open bracket is going on... but it is indeed very difficult to crack the top as a new comer with no points Well then no one will care about the 256 and only championship bracket. Like seriously, why not do an open double elim bracket where past players get seeded high and face people who arent seeded... If they are truly the best ,then the should beat non-seeded players easy... well if the nonseeded player truly deserve to be in the championship round, he will get there right? it's the samething as the GSL protecting their top 16 code S players... i kinda like this format... but to each his own... i like the fact i don't have to wait out the first hour or 2 of the MLG cuz either it's noob vs noob or a pro completely rolling a noob... (when i say noob, they are all way better than me)
It's a DRASTICALLY unfair advantage given to seeded players, just due to the number of games they don't have to play. And unlike GSL there's no up and down match system, and it's not in groups either.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On February 26 2011 09:47 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:25 QuothTheRaven wrote:
I'm disappointed to see extended series is still around and the final is still a Bo3, but I suppose we'll just have to live with it.
Overall things are looking great for 2011; here's hoping we'll see some epic games! Halo matches last like exactly 15 minutes each. Bo5 means at most 1 hr 15 minute finals. Bo5 for starcraft can means 5 30 minute matches, or up to 3 hr finals. Statistically, the odds of winning a best of 5 if you win a best of 3 is like 90%.
You really have to provide a reliable source if you want to play the statistics card.
|
I'm beginning to think the only reason extended series is still there is just an advertising ploy, makes sure any MLG post gets plenty of replies
'Nazgul HWIGHTING !
|
If a new player came to the next MLG event, went through the Open Bracket and placed 3rd overall in the tournament he or she would still not be seeded into the Championship Bracket at the next event. That is crazy. I think the history of past performance goes back way too far. In SC2 you are only as good as you are right now, not as good as you were 3 months ago, not as good as you were a year ago.
|
I really like this format. As much as some people say that it doesn't address the issues that people had with the old format, I think that its actually a pretty good compromise. Maybe I just like complicated formats though. :X We'll see how it all turns out.
|
People actually liked extended series? WTF.
I am pretty damn disappointed MLG....I have no idea how on earth you could think that it's a good idea.
Each set is an isolated event. What happened yesterday shouldn't matter today, and 20 other things.
|
 wtf is this shit i just want to play the gamez
|
On February 26 2011 09:53 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:47 darmousseh wrote:On February 26 2011 09:25 QuothTheRaven wrote:
I'm disappointed to see extended series is still around and the final is still a Bo3, but I suppose we'll just have to live with it.
Overall things are looking great for 2011; here's hoping we'll see some epic games! Halo matches last like exactly 15 minutes each. Bo5 means at most 1 hr 15 minute finals. Bo5 for starcraft can means 5 30 minute matches, or up to 3 hr finals. Statistically, the odds of winning a best of 5 if you win a best of 3 is like 90%. You really have to provide a reliable source if you want to play the statistics card.
The average time in GSL4 ro32 (so before the newer larger maps were put into the pool) was 12 minutes.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=182992
|
Just wait for MLG to release their Bracket show, It'll explain the formats better.
|
United States123 Posts
On February 26 2011 09:55 hugman wrote:
If a new player came to the next MLG event, went through the Open Bracket and placed 3rd overall in the tournament he or she would still not be seeded into the Championship Bracket at the next event. That is crazy. I think the history of past performance goes back way too far. In SC2 you are only as good as you are right now, not as good as you were 3 months ago, not as good as you were a year ago.
I don't have the time to put math together to dispute this with numbers, but I know for a fact that's false.
|
On February 26 2011 09:55 hugman wrote:
I think the history of past performance goes back way too far. In SC2 you are only as good as you are right now, not as good as you were 3 months ago, not as good as you were a year ago.
This is exactly my thoughts aswell.
Who dosnt love new people making it?
|
Seems to me that there are too many parallels between the rules for Halo and SC2. I can somewhat understand homogenization when it comes to a promotion, and particularly if the games are in the same genre, but Halo and SC are the same as a steak to a '59 Ford.
I particularly remember a quote from MLGLee on the SOTG podcast, and I can't quite quote it verbatim, but the gist of it was that they shouldn't use the rule set that has been around for years that other promotions and such use or used because some of them went defunct.
I'm genuinely interested how many RTS games they ran over the years. If I'm correct SC2 is the first and only so far. Every other thing has been a shooter or a fighter with exception to WoW.
I'm not going to discuss it further, but seeing them get flak for the rule set last year and seeing that the things that people particularly complained about carry over to this year seems rather ignorant. But whatever. Either people will bitch and it won't change or people will bitch and it will change. There's no door number 3 here.
|
seed 17 has to play 13-20 bo3s to win.
seed 16 has to play 7-13 bo3s to win.
yeah, that doesnt make a lot of sense. Advantage is way to big for seeded players.
|
In theory the amount of games played by the people in pool-play is nice, it means that you don't get a high placement because you got a somewhat easy bracket in a double elim tournament, but extent to which it penalises new players is just too great. This feels more like a league structure than an event structure, and maybe that's what MLG envisions it as, but I think most of us spectators think of MLG events as separate events.
|
man when i opened this i thought extended series would be gone
|
Sundance said that they listened to the starcraft community about their rules. Apparently not.
NOBODY I'VE EVER TALKED TO OUTSIDE OF THE HALO COMMUNITY HAS EVER LIKED THE EXTENDED SERIES.
Well it shows real class to not give a crap about the opinions of the players in your events.
|
On February 26 2011 10:01 MLG-Lies wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:55 hugman wrote:
If a new player came to the next MLG event, went through the Open Bracket and placed 3rd overall in the tournament he or she would still not be seeded into the Championship Bracket at the next event. That is crazy. I think the history of past performance goes back way too far. In SC2 you are only as good as you are right now, not as good as you were 3 months ago, not as good as you were a year ago. I don't have the time to put math together to dispute this with numbers, but I know for a fact that's false.
It's right there in Slasher's post
The 16th seed player is EG.Machine with 975 points. 3rd place at a season event nets you 900 points.
|
On February 26 2011 09:56 N3rV[Green] wrote:
People actually liked extended series? WTF.
I am pretty damn disappointed MLG....I have no idea how on earth you could think that it's a good idea.
Each set is an isolated event. What happened yesterday shouldn't matter today, and 20 other things.
I really don't understand why your still bitter about this. They announced over a month ago that they weren't going to change it (State of the Game). I think you make a big deal out of something that in the grand scheme of things isn't. I mean it isn't as bad as the BO1 coinflips scenario at a certain European tournament. By the way the player that is best on the most maps will win, regardless of map order.
|
8748 Posts
On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice.
You can lose a match in the open bracket and still win the whole thing.
If you don't lose a match in the open bracket, you can skip a bunch of rounds by doing well in group play.
I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Exactly the opposite actually. Top players play each other on all 3 days.
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve?
To give fans something interesting to watch instead of pros beating newbs for 2 days until you finally get worthwhile matches on the 3rd day.
While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
.....
MLG's top 16 doesn't seem particularly harder than GSL/NASL/TSL. The only difference is that MLG compresses it all into one weekend, so it does take some endurance, but it's not unreasonable.
|
LOL bo3 finals
MLG shows once again that they don't care about the SC community feedback.
Two games deciding the champion = retarded
|
|
|
On February 26 2011 09:48 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:41 JoxxOr wrote:On February 26 2011 09:35 Doraemon.doraemon wrote:On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games...
Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG.
Slasher you've been watching/participating/reporting esport for ages, cant you understand how stupid this sounds? won't be boring for spectators as the top 16 will play each other right away while the open bracket is going on... but it is indeed very difficult to crack the top as a new comer with no points Well then no one will care about the 256 and only championship bracket. Like seriously, why not do an open double elim bracket where past players get seeded high and face people who arent seeded... If they are truly the best ,then the should beat non-seeded players easy... well if the nonseeded player truly deserve to be in the championship round, he will get there right? it's the samething as the GSL protecting their top 16 code S players... i kinda like this format... but to each his own... i like the fact i don't have to wait out the first hour or 2 of the MLG cuz either it's noob vs noob or a pro completely rolling a noob... (when i say noob, they are all way better than me)
edit: Might not understood shit, will repost if im just stupid, sorry
|
I think this would be a good format for the national championship, but I don't know about using it for the regular season. Having a Championship bracket for the regular season events along with the prize pool, seems like it will be very difficult for overseas players who are new to MLG (and it sounds like there may be a lot of these players). I hope it doesn't reduce the interest from top overseas players, but I fear that some may decide it's not worth it given the following:
- The huge advantage the top 16 get in each tournament
- The difficulty of getting enough points to get into the top 16 with such a large open tournament.
- The decent, but not large prize pool for the regular season
- Only the top 8 get money
Given the large costs of flying overseas and hotel room, a lot of teams may think it's not worth it to send their players. I hope I'm wrong, though.
|
Ehrrr..
inControl missed the cut by 55 points, good luck man, at least there's upside that Machine made the cut so you won't have to play him early
Honestly though, I agree with most people this format seems so favourable for top 16 and hard to break..
Either way it should make for a fun State of the Game at least.
|
On February 26 2011 10:04 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 10:01 MLG-Lies wrote:On February 26 2011 09:55 hugman wrote:
If a new player came to the next MLG event, went through the Open Bracket and placed 3rd overall in the tournament he or she would still not be seeded into the Championship Bracket at the next event. That is crazy. I think the history of past performance goes back way too far. In SC2 you are only as good as you are right now, not as good as you were 3 months ago, not as good as you were a year ago. I don't have the time to put math together to dispute this with numbers, but I know for a fact that's false. It's right there in Slasher's post The 16th seed player is EG.Machine with 975 points. 3rd place at a season event nets you 900 points.
*2010 Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points will be used as the highest priority Rank Points in seeding the Starcraft 2 Event at the 2011 Dallas Competition. After the Dallas Competition, 2011 Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points will replace all 2010 Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points. 2011 Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points may be used as Rolling Rank Points in 2012.
http://pro.majorleaguegaming.com/competitions/16#event_33_competition_format
|
United States123 Posts
On February 26 2011 10:04 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 10:01 MLG-Lies wrote:On February 26 2011 09:55 hugman wrote:
If a new player came to the next MLG event, went through the Open Bracket and placed 3rd overall in the tournament he or she would still not be seeded into the Championship Bracket at the next event. That is crazy. I think the history of past performance goes back way too far. In SC2 you are only as good as you are right now, not as good as you were 3 months ago, not as good as you were a year ago. I don't have the time to put math together to dispute this with numbers, but I know for a fact that's false. It's right there in Slasher's post The 16th seed player is EG.Machine with 975 points. 3rd place at a season event nets you 900 points.
Points from the previous Season depreciate at a certain rate. Like I said, I don't have time tonight to put the exact math together, but I know that a player who takes third place at the first Event will indeed be seeded within the Top 16.
|
On February 26 2011 09:17 hmunkey wrote:
I don't really see the whole issue with extended series. Yeah, if the games were held at entirely different times where training between matches mattered, it would be a problem. In MLG however, they're held in the same or next day.
The problem with extended series is that if you lose the first round and have to come out of the losers bracket you have to do something ridiculous like 13-0 in your matches from there on out to win the tournament. If you win every game and get to the championship you're something like 8-0 and you have the grace of going 1-1 in the finals. That grace is earned, but why do you need to add the detriment of 4 more matches to the first loser AND then have him start off something like 0-2 in his last games.
On the bright side seeding the top 16 players is pretty sick. Will the points pools ever be reset though? Or does it only include the last 12 months of MLGs into its calculations?
|
On February 26 2011 10:06 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. You can lose a match in the open bracket and still win the whole thing. If you don't lose a match in the open bracket, you can skip a bunch of rounds by doing well in group play. Show nested quote +I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games... Exactly the opposite actually. Top players play each other on all 3 days. To give fans something interesting to watch instead of pros beating newbs for 2 days until you finally get worthwhile matches on the 3rd day. Show nested quote +While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG. ..... MLG's top 16 doesn't seem particularly harder than GSL/NASL/TSL. The only difference is that MLG compresses it all into one weekend, so it does take some endurance, but it's not unreasonable.
Tyler to the rescue!
|
On February 26 2011 10:06 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. You can lose a match in the open bracket and still win the whole thing. If you don't lose a match in the open bracket, you can skip a bunch of rounds by doing well in group play. Show nested quote +I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games... Exactly the opposite actually. Top players play each other on all 3 days. To give fans something interesting to watch instead of pros beating newbs for 2 days until you finally get worthwhile matches on the 3rd day. Show nested quote +While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG. ..... MLG's top 16 doesn't seem particularly harder than GSL/NASL/TSL. The only difference is that MLG compresses it all into one weekend, so it does take some endurance, but it's not unreasonable.
I think i got really confused and made a stupid and uninformed post sorry protoss legend <3.
But just to make things clear:
There are one open tournament and then there are one where top 16 seeded plays.
The TOP 16 From Open and the 16 seeded in championship bracket will go into another bracket that where the winner from that can call themself the champion?
Well that makes a lot more sense and i can see now from a spectator how that might be even more funnier to watch. However, i just cant imagine how hard it will be trying to get all those games played, one 256, one 16, and one 32 man tournament over 3 days. I cant imagine what will happen if B.Net 2.0 starts to appear and delays all the games
|
This format as AWFUL; I really can't put it any nicer. I'd like to at least see some explanations on why they chose the things they did rather than saying "this is how it's going to be," when they know that a lot of the ideas they're implementing are highly unpopular.
|
8748 Posts
On February 26 2011 10:16 JoxxOr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 10:06 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. You can lose a match in the open bracket and still win the whole thing. If you don't lose a match in the open bracket, you can skip a bunch of rounds by doing well in group play. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games... Exactly the opposite actually. Top players play each other on all 3 days. Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? To give fans something interesting to watch instead of pros beating newbs for 2 days until you finally get worthwhile matches on the 3rd day. While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG. ..... MLG's top 16 doesn't seem particularly harder than GSL/NASL/TSL. The only difference is that MLG compresses it all into one weekend, so it does take some endurance, but it's not unreasonable. I think i got really confused and made a stupid and uninformed post sorry protoss legend <3. But just to make things clear: There are one open tournament and then there are one where top 16 seeded plays. The TOP 16 From Open and the 16 seeded in championship bracket will go into another bracket that where the winner from that can call themself the champion? Well that makes a lot more sense, however i still find it quite confusing
You're getting closer lol
top 16 are put into 4 groups
Group A: HuK (1), Jinro (8), SLush (9), Machine (16)
Group B: KiWiKaKi (2), Tyler (7), qxc (10), Agh (15)
Group C: TT1 (3), Drewbie (6), IdrA (11), TLO (14)
Group D: SeleCt (4), PainUser (5), Socke (12), Ret (13)
Open bracket is double elimination. They don't play it all the way through. They play it until there are 4 people in the upper bracket and 12 people in the lower bracket. The 4 people in the upper join the groups
Group A: HuK (1), Jinro (8), SLush (9), Machine (16), Open1
Group B: KiWiKaKi (2), Tyler (7), qxc (10), Agh (15), Open2
Group C: TT1 (3), Drewbie (6), IdrA (11), TLO (14), Open3
Group D: SeleCt (4), PainUser (5), Socke (12), Ret (13), Open4
And the 12 people from the lower bracket start out a new bracket (they're in the lower bracket of this new bracket). 8 of them are in round 1, 4 of them are in round 2. In round 3 wait the 5th place players from each group. In round 4 wait the 4th place players from each group. In round 5 wait the 3rd place players from each group. In round 6 wait the 2nd place players from each group. The first place players in each group are in the upper bracket round 1.
|
8748 Posts
On February 26 2011 10:17 OTL wrote:
This format as AWFUL; I really can't put it any nicer. I'd like to at least see some explanations on why they chose the things they did rather than saying "this is how it's going to be," when they know that a lot of the ideas they're implementing are highly unpopular.
it's so you can get to see these players play each other on day 1
Group A: HuK (1), Jinro (8), SLush (9), Machine (16)
Group B: KiWiKaKi (2), Tyler (7), qxc (10), Agh (15)
Group C: TT1 (3), Drewbie (6), IdrA (11), TLO (14)
Group D: SeleCt (4), PainUser (5), Socke (12), Ret (13)
then you get to see the final rounds of the open bracket on day 2, as well as the winners of the open bracket play these players
Group A: HuK (1), Jinro (8), SLush (9), Machine (16)
Group B: KiWiKaKi (2), Tyler (7), qxc (10), Agh (15)
Group C: TT1 (3), Drewbie (6), IdrA (11), TLO (14)
Group D: SeleCt (4), PainUser (5), Socke (12), Ret (13)
on day 2.
then on day 3 you get to watch the championship bracket play out, where everyone is good and all the matches are interesting
when you seed the top players into a bracket mixed with the open players, you are pretty much guaranteeing a ton of newb bashing on days 1-2. the top players dont want to travel to a tournament to newb bash and fans dont want to watch that.
|
On February 26 2011 10:22 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 10:16 JoxxOr wrote:On February 26 2011 10:06 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On February 26 2011 09:31 JoxxOr wrote:
This really fuck up europeans/koreans who wants to go to MLG. Seriously, we have to enter a 256 man tournament where if we're undefeated can enter another 16 man tournament where we possibly can win some money. It almost feels like rolling a dice. You can lose a match in the open bracket and still win the whole thing. If you don't lose a match in the open bracket, you can skip a bunch of rounds by doing well in group play. I can also imagine how boring it will be from a spectator view watching these games... Exactly the opposite actually. Top players play each other on all 3 days. Confusing, stupid and just.... like what purpose does this serve? To give fans something interesting to watch instead of pros beating newbs for 2 days until you finally get worthwhile matches on the 3rd day. While this might help getting better players into top brackets and giving us some better game in the end. It can also be solved by seeds, allowing top tier players facing newbs with no ranking points..... Like what the hell MLG. ..... MLG's top 16 doesn't seem particularly harder than GSL/NASL/TSL. The only difference is that MLG compresses it all into one weekend, so it does take some endurance, but it's not unreasonable. I think i got really confused and made a stupid and uninformed post sorry protoss legend <3. But just to make things clear: There are one open tournament and then there are one where top 16 seeded plays. The TOP 16 From Open and the 16 seeded in championship bracket will go into another bracket that where the winner from that can call themself the champion? Well that makes a lot more sense, however i still find it quite confusing You're getting closer lol top 16 are put into 4 groups Group A: HuK (1), Jinro (8), SLush (9), Machine (16) Group B: KiWiKaKi (2), Tyler (7), qxc (10), Agh (15) Group C: TT1 (3), Drewbie (6), IdrA (11), TLO (14) Group D: SeleCt (4), PainUser (5), Socke (12), Ret (13) Open bracket is double elimination. They don't play it all the way through. They play it until there are 4 people in the upper bracket and 12 people in the lower bracket. The 4 people in the upper join the groups Group A: HuK (1), Jinro (8), SLush (9), Machine (16), Open1 Group B: KiWiKaKi (2), Tyler (7), qxc (10), Agh (15), Open2 Group C: TT1 (3), Drewbie (6), IdrA (11), TLO (14), Open3 Group D: SeleCt (4), PainUser (5), Socke (12), Ret (13), Open4 And the 12 people from the lower bracket start out a new bracket. 8 of them are in round 1, 4 of them are in round 2. In round 3 wait the 5th place players from each group. In round 4 wait the 4th place players from each group. In round 5 wait the 3rd place players from each group. In round 6 wait the 2nd place players from each group. The first place players in each group are in the upper bracket round 1.
Okay i think i got it now, but man. How confusing is this....... While its true that this might be the most fair way for the players, something needs to be said from a specating view as well. I guess its just something you have to grow custom to i guess.
With this format i atleast guess that the games will be better, i think the only part that will be harder is following all the different brackets, but <3 for explaining things for us mental retarted europeans
|
Looks like MLG dropped the ball. The new format is more convoluted than ever. Starcraft doesn't fit into the Halo mold, so why force it onto people. I'll wait and see how this shakes out in Dallas before I pass any judgment. However, MLGs unwillingness to adopt a more widely accepted Starcraft tournament structure doesn't instill me with much confidence.
|
Looks good. Maps are the question now
|
This format is good and bad at the same time, depending on perspective.
I was always of the understanding that group play eliminated the need for double elimination, as those advancing from the group had multiple games to prove their worth (aka, how the GSL does Code S).
|
still way too confused -______-
|
.....i am quite confused at how the brackets work....and i actually got the gsl format first time i looked at it so....this is really complicated....what if the seeded players decide not to show up like jinro who weighs gsl over any other tournament if the schedule overlaps?
|
On February 26 2011 10:29 Agh wrote:
still way too confused -______-
Read Tylers post
|
On February 26 2011 10:32 zaii wrote:Read Tylers post
didnt help, so we just play 'showmatches' for the stream on the first day?
|
On February 26 2011 10:33 Agh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 10:32 zaii wrote:On February 26 2011 10:29 Agh wrote:
still way too confused -______- Read Tylers post didnt help, so we just play 'showmatches' for the stream on the first day?
No those factor into the end tourmanet where depending on how good you played there, the more rounds you can pass.... i think :D
|
On February 26 2011 10:30 TicketoHELL wrote:
.....i am quite confused at how the brackets work....and i actually got the gsl format first time i looked at it so....this is really complicated....what if the seeded players decide not to show up like jinro who weighs gsl over any other tournament if the schedule overlaps?
It's really not that confusing. Put a modicum of effort into reading the OP.
|
I think that this format looks really interesting. I like that MLG is trying things that haven't been tried with Starcraft before. My only concern is how hard it will be to break into the top 16 because it will be hard to catch up on points to the seeded player, will the points start over with this tournament?
|
United States22883 Posts
I actually like the format. I think it's one of the better ways to run a tournament. Having an extended series between the Open and Championship parts is not, however.
|
On February 26 2011 10:37 radioyak wrote:
I think that this format looks really interesting. I like that MLG is trying things that haven't been tried with Starcraft before. My only concern is how hard it will be to break into the top 16 because it will be hard to catch up on points to the seeded player, will the points start over with this tournament?
They usually reset after every season, or the points from the past season are used only for the first event/are weighted less than that of the current season, so it is possible to climb up the rankings.
Still hate extended series though...well at least the group stages is a nice improvement.
|
I like it, but please make the Final BO5
|
Interesting format, but we need more than a Bo3 in the finals. Bo7 finals with Bo5 semi's would be preferable, but anything is better than Bo3 all the way through.
|
I am almost certain they won't use GSL maps. It's what they should do, if they had the guts to, but they won't--due to the open nature of their tournaments.
|
I'm not sure how I feel about all the rules, but I feel for the most part that waiting until after at least MLG Dallas is called for before criticisms. But I do have at least two objections before then.
First of all, like many, I absolutely hate extended series. But that debate has been done to death, so I'll leave it at that.
Secondly, I don't like the order of play for the open bracket players that make it to the championship group play. I feel that having them play from currently placed 4th to currently placed 1st means that depending on how they do, the 1st place person might not even have to win to maintain first place. That would take a lot of the interest out of the last game or two of group play. ( edit: This also means that because they have less incentive to try they might lose pretty easily, which could effect the placement of other people in the group negatively )
If, however, you change the order for the player to play from 1st to 4th, then each game would still have meaning. The 1st place person would be inclined to actually try hard, because if they lose, the chance that the open bracket player could run the gauntlet and take 1st would be weighing on their mind. Then, each game after that, the currently placed person would still have a strong incentive to win because they're fighting hard for their current spot, or depending on how previous games have gone, a higher spot.
|
So now that I (kinda) understand the format, is it correct that the better you do in pool placement, the less matches you have to play later on?
Meaning that we won't get to see the best players as often as lesser players?
|
so from some quick brain math this means between 1500-1700 games or something like this? (games as in maps played)
This sounds overwhelming gl to raelcun and prodigy with mlg mondays and sundays already had a hard time getting through 10% of the games!
|
I feel bad for the players in the open portion. They wont spend the time between events practicing, they'll spend that time recovering from mental trauma Lol
|
It's very clear cut and simple to me; maybe because I played mlg circuit games for a couple years.
It's all about consistency; both throughout the weekend and the season. You get rewarded for skill and dedication.
So what if one of the top Koreans comes and has to play through the open. What about the players who've come to several events and earned their points (seed); they are the players who should receive the benefits.
Most of the posts I've read are very reactionary and have put no thought into the process or rewards.
|
Slasher you might want to integrate Tyler's explanation into the OP. It will make things clearer.
|
Maybe im just tired, but GSL made pretty much sense for me the first time i read it, This... not so much.
Tylers explanation helped though, but im still uncertain about the "pool play". Is it correct that the poolplay wont start until the open bracket is down to RO4 WB - since the pool play have players from the open bracket?
If thats the case, that means only open brackets on stream for the first hours, that seems kind of sad.
Edit: Ok, nevermind, thats just me being tired. The open bracket players will join the pool play after the top16 have played. Think i get it now, although im not sure how i feel about it.
|
no, first page details it, pool play will be all 3 days, with every game except for open bracket players being done by Sunday. On Sunday, the undefeated open bracket players will have to go through a gauntlet and play all four other players in their group in a row, from current 4th to current 1st. So you get to see the seeded players all 3 days.
|
I think we could live with the Extended Series, if they just changed 1 thing: You don't come in with an Advantage. A Bo3 previous means they play a Bo5, let the winner of the first match choose the 2nd map. Give some advantage, but as a huge amount of SC2 is about maps, they really need to not give such an advantage to the person that won the first time.
|
T.T so much team killing in those brackets.
|
Woah, look at those groups, so awesome..
|
Sounds brilliant and awesome for people already in the top 16. Sounds like an f'ing trainwreck for anyone not already in the top 16.
|
Extended Series. Question Mark.
|
MLG you have to be kidding me. Do you honestly think running the extended series is the best way to move forward when the majority of people who watch your events HATES the rule? It makes no logical sense why a player who lost in the open stages has to already be down two games if he is to rematch in the championship bracket, or even the final game. It's already hard enough for the players when you force them to play a ridiculous amount of games in one day, they DON'T need the added pressure.
These type of rules MLG continues to employ makes me all the more excited for NASL: a real league run by real SC people. Keep your Halo rules away from SC. And I definitely will not be watching any of the later MLG events if they continue to have SOW, JB and BS in the map pool like the did with DO and KR.
|
On February 26 2011 11:33 Yamulo wrote:
T.T so much team killing in those brackets.
There can only be one!
|
I can only hope for some great games and someone to simplify this in a new post( or another subway map ^^).
|
For all the people wondering how they're going to fit all these games in, here's the full schedule for MLG Dallas. Basically, they're going really late on Friday and a full day on Sunday to fit all the extra games in (compared to last year):
+ Show Spoiler [Full weekend schedule] +Friday
10:30 AM - 1:30 PM Early Check-In
1:30 PM - 5:00 PM Check-In / Warm-Up
5:00 PM - 5:30 PM Welcome
5:30 PM - 6:30 PM Pools A & D Round 1
5:30 PM - 9:30 PM Open Winners Round 1
6:30 PM - 7:30 PM Pools B & C Round 1
7:30 PM - 8:30 PM Pools A & D Round 2
8:30 PM - 9:30 PM Pools B & C Round 2
9:30 PM - 10:30 PM Pools A & D Round 3
9:30 PM - 11:30 PM Open Winners Round 2
10:30 PM - 11:30 PM Pools B & C Round 3
11:30 PM - 12:30 AM Open Winners Round 3
12:30 AM - 1:30 AM Open Winners Round 4
Saturday
8:00 AM - 10:00 AM Warm-Up
10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Losers Round 1
12:00 PM - 2:00 PM Open Winners Round 5 / Losers Round 2
2:00 PM - 3:00 PM Open Winners Round 5 / Losers Round 3
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM Open Winners Round 6 / Losers Round 4
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM Losers Round 5
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM Pools A-D Round 4 / Open Losers Round 6
6:00 PM - 7:00 PM Pools A-D Round 5 / Open Losers Round 7
7:00 PM - 8:00 PM Open Losers Round 8
8:00 PM - 9:00 PM Pools A-D Round 6 / Championship Losers Round 1
9:00 PM - 10:00 PM Pools A-D Round 7 / Championship Losers Round 2
Sunday
8:00 AM - 10:00 AM Warm-Up
10:00 AM - 11:00 AM Championship Losers Round 3
11:00 AM - 12:00 PM Championship Losers Round 4
12:00 PM - 1:00 PM Championship Winners Semifinals A / Losers Round 5
1:00 PM - 2:00 PM Championship Winners Semifinals B / Losers Round 6
2:00 PM - 3:00 PM Championship Losers Round 7
3:00 PM - 4:00 PM Championship Losers Round 8
4:00 PM - 5:00 PM Championship Losers Round 9
4:30 PM - 5:30 PM Championship Winners Finals
5:30 PM - 7:00 PM Championship Losers Finals
7:00 PM - 8:30 PM Championship Finals
Friday night to Saturday looks pretty crazy for players in the open winners or who lose in open round 2 (10.5 hours between games for both groups).
Source: http://pro.majorleaguegaming.com/competitions/16#event_33_schedule
|
The only concern I have is that the 1st place of pool play is an automatic 6th place finish, and getting past the first round of winner's bracket is an automatic 3rd place. Starting in the top 16 also means at worst you get top 24. Perhaps the top 32 should just be a double elimination bracket with extended play.
It feels like it is really hard to dislodge those already at the top.
Aside from that it is pretty fair and offers exciting games through-out the tournament.
|
On February 26 2011 10:49 Jibba wrote:
I actually like the format. I think it's one of the better ways to run a tournament. Having an extended series between the Open and Championship parts is not, however.
Agreed to the fullest. Will be interesting to see how the tournament turns out, but I don't see a good reason to have extended series, especially in this particular format.
|
Format is great for the viewers; I'm not sure about for the players. I don't even have a problem with extended series, except for the finals. And even now, if it is BO3 finals, an extended series might be more entertaining. I hope the finals (and maybe even semi-finals) end up BO5 or 7. Yes, as some people have said, they may end up taking 2+ hours. But I'd believe that would make for a more exciting finals then the possibility of less than 20 minutes which is possible with some of the current match ups. I'm very excited for this season!
|
On February 26 2011 12:14 Shanlan wrote:
The only concern I have is that the 1st place of pool play is an automatic 6th place finish, and getting past the first round of winner's bracket is an automatic 3rd place. Starting in the top 16 also means at worst you get top 24. Perhaps the top 32 should just be a double elimination bracket with extended play.
It feels like it is really hard to dislodge those already at the top.
Aside from that it is pretty fair and offers exciting games through-out the tournament.
It really depends on the ranking point distributions. If the differences between 8-16 and say, 17-32 aren't that big, then there could be a lot of shifting. Remember also that there wasn't a lot of consistency in last season's tourneys, so it's quite possible for someone to get 1st one tourney and then 8th or worse the next, so the points may be closer than you think. too soon to tell, really.
|
On February 26 2011 09:47 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:25 QuothTheRaven wrote:
I'm disappointed to see extended series is still around and the final is still a Bo3, but I suppose we'll just have to live with it.
Overall things are looking great for 2011; here's hoping we'll see some epic games! Halo matches last like exactly 15 minutes each. Bo5 means at most 1 hr 15 minute finals. Bo5 for starcraft can means 5 30 minute matches, or up to 3 hr finals. Statistically, the odds of winning a best of 5 if you win a best of 3 is like 90%.
Except that's not exactly how MLG does it. If the guy from lower bracket win the first Bo3 they play another. So they could end up with 6 games by playing two Bo3. So it's not always gonna save time, and in the extreme cases playing Bo3 in the final actually takes more time than a single Bo5.
On the other hand you can have the guy from winners bracket win 2-0 in 20 minutes which would of course be extremely anticlimactic. Like when Idra beat Select. That was the least exciting finals I've ever seen.
I think dubble eliminationg is a cool format and I don't even really mind the extended series (especially since hearing Tyler's reasoning for liking it) but having the final constructed in this weird way can potentially leave the viewers with a very flat feeling and I don't really see the point
|
Can somebody explain the implications of the pool play part and how that works? >_> (or direct me to a post that answers that question)
|
Can't believe they didn't remove the extended series rule after all the critiques from the community. Stubborn people
I am not sure that format is better. It's gonna really exhausting for players in the long run. But the good thing is we are really gonna who are the best tournament players.
But i guess it does add some value for the viewers by having more games. Hopefully they'll have at least 2 teams of casters because i wouldn't want to cast that whole tournament.
Can't wait to hear Incontrol's and Tyler's opinion on this new format.
|
Holy... and I thought that GSL was confusing!?!?!?
|
Pool play means that many more extended series will occur compared to last year.
Very disappointing changes.
|
Ugggh extended series returns? This is very disappointing. I don't see why MLG can't just adopt the format that nearly every SC tournament has had sense the dark ages.
|
On February 26 2011 12:47 kNightLite wrote:
Pool play means that many more extended series will occur compared to last year.
Very disappointing changes.
That's good though, Bo7 is better than Bo3 in the later rounds even if the first 2-3 games are already decided from a previous series.
|
apparently I'm in FXO and I didnt even know it T_T
|
Could someone (OP?) please check if I've understood the simulated bracket correctly?
There's 254 open participants and 16 ranking seeds.
The ranking seeds are competing for:
- 16 spots in the final 24 (seeded 1-20 through pool play).
The open participants is competing for:
- 4 spots in the final 24 given to undefeated open players (seeded 1-20 through pool play).
- 4 spots in the final 24 given to open players with 1 loss (seeded 21-24)
- Seeds 21-24 needs 10 straight match wins to become the overall winner.
- 10 straight match wins equals winning a 1024-player knock-out tournament.
|
On February 26 2011 13:09 Response wrote:
apparently I'm in FXO and I didnt even know it T_T
Congrats on joining FXO
|
This should be interesting, pools could be fun or just a waste of time. We'll see how it goes. It's MLG so I'm sure it will be awesome.
|
On February 26 2011 13:40 S.O.L.I.D. wrote:
This should be interesting, pools could be fun or just a waste of time. We'll see how it goes. It's MLG so I'm sure it will be awesome.
Or it will be f'ing terrible, but they'll wait until next season to make any adjustment whatsoever.
|
You have to wonder if MLG was trying to outgun the GSL on convoluted tournament format. I gave them some slack last year since they implemented SC2 midway through their season and just adapted rules from their other games. To see them not only complicate things further, what should be a simple double-elimination tournament but, also keep the rules that people rallied against is mind blowing.
Like others have mentioned now those that start out as top 16 are basically cemented up there since they can't get any lower than 32nd place. They are being artificially inflated since there isn't even a CHANCE of them being eliminated earlier. Great for them horrible for everybody else. I noticed Tyler mention that no one likes to see the pros stomp nubs in the first couple of rounds. While I agree with him, some of the best moments come from upsets in those early rounds.
I'm just at a loss for words though, I want MLG to succeed because I love watching SC. Seeing MLG trying to reinvent the wheel in tournament formatting is just retarded, especially if this is going to be the format of EVERY tournament.
Edit: Correction on lowest place the top 16 seed can achieve.
|
On February 26 2011 13:11 Blueblister wrote:
Could someone please check if I've understood the simulated bracket correctly?
There's 254 "Open"-participants and 16 "Ranking"-seeds.
The ranking seeds are competing for:
- 16 spots in the final 24 (seeded 1-20 into the bracket depending on pool play results).
The open participants is competing for:
- 4 spots in the final 24 (seeded 1-20 depending on pool play results).
- 4 spots in the final 24 (seeded 21-24)
- Players seeded 21-24 are 10 match wins away from becoming the overall winner.
The ranking seeds are competing for:
- 16 spots in the final 32 (seeded 1-20 into the bracket depending on pool play results).
The open participants are competing for:
- 4 spots in the final 32 (seeded 1-20 depending on pool play results).
- 12 spots in the final 32 (seeded 21-32)
- Players seeded 25-32 are 11 match wins away from becoming the overall champion
- Players seeded 21-24 are 10 match wins away from becoming the overall champion
I am quite sure that this is accurate; I apologise if it isn't.
EDIT: I didn't realize this was my first post. I normally just lurk the forums O.O
|
On February 26 2011 13:09 Response wrote:
apparently I'm in FXO and I didnt even know it T_T
Great team choice. Kudos for stealth-joining.
|
I've been following mlg for a few years now, and the one point they really fail on is their tournament bracket setup. They seem to never have a solid system and continually try to switch things up. For a while in halo they had random drawn seeds (like #3-6 could play anyone from 11-14). Just stuff that doesn't make sense.
Groups really don't work in a three day tournament. It will probably be more interesting to watch, but the competitive level suffers.
Honestly I think the best format would be a single-elim, bo5 bracket. That's really the only thing you can really fit into a weekend.
|
On February 26 2011 13:51 Hrrrrm wrote:
You have to wonder if MLG was trying to outgun the GSL on convoluted tournament format. I gave them some slack last year since they implemented SC2 midway through their season and just adapted rules from their other games. To see them not only complicate things further, what should be a simple double-elimination tournament but, also keep the rules that people rallied against is mind blowing.
Like others have mentioned now those that start out as top 16 are basically cemented up there since they can't get any lower than 20th place. They are being artificially inflated since there isn't even a CHANCE of them being eliminated earlier. Great for them horrible for everybody else. I noticed Tyler mention that no one likes to see the pros stomp nubs in the first couple of rounds. While I agree with him, some of the best moments come from upsets in those early rounds.
I'm just at a loss for words though, I want MLG to succeed because I love watching SC. Seeing MLG trying to reinvent the wheel in tournament formatting is just retarded, especially if this is going to be the format of EVERY tournament.
They're only seeded in 1-20 for the 32 man Championship Bracket. If someone loses two series there, he ends up in 25th to 32nd place, which won't give him any ranking points for the next tournament (only Top 16 players get points).
That said, it is much easier for the Top 16, since they have to play less games, less stressful games (because pool placement "only" affects your seed compared to the live-or-die knockout brackets everyone else has to go through) and there's not a full 64/128 final bracket to emerge from like we had in the three previous MLG events.
|
The top 16 must be ecstatic about this format...
|
On February 26 2011 13:56 Weseen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 13:11 Blueblister wrote:
Could someone (OP?) please check if I've understood the simulated bracket correctly?
There's 254 open participants and 16 ranking seeds.
The ranking seeds are competing for:
- 16 spots in the final 24 (seeded 1-20 through pool play).
The open participants is competing for:
- 4 spots in the final 24 given to undefeated open players (seeded 1-20 through pool play).
- 4 spots in the final 24 given to open players with 1 loss (seeded 21-24)
- Seeds 21-24 needs 10 straight match wins to become the overall winner.
Last edit: 2011-02-26 13:54:11
- 10 straight match wins equals winning a 1024-player knock-out tournament. The ranking seeds are competing for: - 16 spots in the final 32 (seeded 1-20 into the bracket depending on pool play results). The open participants are competing for: - 4 spots in the final 32 (seeded 1-20 depending on pool play results). - 12 spots in the final 32 (seeded 21-32) - Players seeded 25-32 are 11 match wins away from becoming the overall champion - Players seeded 21-24 are 10 match wins away from becoming the overall champion I am quite sure that this is accurate; I apologise if it isn't. EDIT: I didn't realize this was my first post. I normally just lurk the forums O.O
Welcome Weseen!
My post was regarding those with chances of winning the event. Seems like there's a second lower bracket without the possibility of making it back to the championship match?
So the 16 seeds are guaranteed 1-20 seeds into the final 24, but for final standings they can place as low as 32nd?
|
Hmm. I actually like the hybrid group-bracket play, and it's fairly straightforward but I have two problems with this:
1. Top 16 are incredibly hard to dislodge. The worst you can get is 24th - only 8 open bracket players can get past you. I understand favoring seeds, both in terms of match quality and making the non-Championship weekends important, but this seems a bit much (4th and 5th in the pool could be pushed down further in the loser's bracket)
2. The schedule is too tight. There are 10 consecutive rounds on both Saturday (LBR1-CLBR2) and 9-10 consecutive on Sunday (CLBR3-Final, 1-2 rounds in Final). It doesn't matter if it's not one player making a run, if a Bo3 runs 2 hours (or even 2 in a row running over 1 hour) it'll delay every round that follows it as they'll need to wait for opponents. Especially if the winner has to go eat or something. But the matches don't start until after 5:30 on Fri, there isn't much to do about this.
On February 26 2011 14:09 Blueblister wrote:
My post was regarding those with chances of winning the event. Seems like there's a second lower bracket without the possibility of making it back to the championship match? .
Are you looking at the "Consolation Bracket" on the right of the simulated bracket link? That's just to determine final placement (such as playing off to determine who gets 5th and 6th between two players eliminated at the same time).
|
I actually really dig this format. Kudos MLG. Also for those saying this is rough for those outside the top 16, there is the advantage of not running into any of those top 16 until the championship bracket. Not saying it sets off the disadvantage but it's something to consider. From a spectator perspective it's going to be fantastic for sure.
|
barring format aside. its all about the maps silly. get the maps right, everything falls into place. i'm rooting for you mlg.
|
I feel like MLG tries way too hard to fix perceived unfairness problems via their format. They probably don't like a top player/team losing early, so they give them byes and make the format double elimination. Then somebody lost to a team they beat earlier in a tournament, people whined, so they came up with extended series. Now there's pool play for...some reason, and I don't really understand what problem that's supposed to fix.
Seriously, if you have pool play + double elim + byes + extended series for a weekend tournament, your format is way overthought and confusing. It's OK sometimes for somebody other than the best players to win a tournament.
|
Ranking Points Distribution - MLG Regular Season Competitions
1st = 1200
2nd = 1000 (-200pts decrease compared to 1st place)
3rd = 900 (-100pts)
4th = 800 (-100pts)
5th = 700 (-100pts)
6th = 650 (-50pts)
7th = 600 (-50pts)
8th = 550 (-50pts)
9th = 490 (-60pts)
10th = 460 (-30pts)
11th = 430 (-30pts)
12th = 400 (-30pts)
13th = 340 (-60pts)
14th = 310 (-30pts)
15th = 280 (-30pts)
16th = 250 (-30pts)
17th = 210 (-40pts)
18th = 200 (-20pts)
19th = 190 (-20pts)
20th = 180 (-20pts)
21st = 140 (-40pts)
22nd = 130 (-10pts)
23rd = 120 (-10pts)
24th = 110 (-10pts)
25th = 90 (-20pts)
26th = 80 (-10pts)
27th = 70 (-10pts)
28th = 60 (-10pts)
29th = 40 (-10pts)
30th = 30 (-10pts)
31st = 20 (-10pts)
32nd = 10 (-10pts)
|
wow, IdrA has a fairly easy group (minus TLO if he goes Terran)
should be interesting
|
On February 26 2011 13:11 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 13:09 Response wrote:
apparently I'm in FXO and I didnt even know it T_T Congrats on joining FXO
I was gonna ask about that lolol
Well I actually kinda like the format.. I'd rather play a ton of games than be waiting around all day. As for koreans/euros, there are many bigger global tournaments, why do the need to be part of the staple american circuit? I kinda prefer for some mid sized events to be mostly NA to give those players a chance to shine. This is of course for partly selfish reasons, but if tournaments like these don't attract foreign players, then I say it just means the scene has grown enough that there are enough tournaments for them to participate in. MLG isn't NASL/GSL/IEM, its a staple american championship.
|
watching all that halo pays off. i actually get it lol.
The bo3 finals probably banks on the fact that the two players will have played before at one point, so most likely it'll be a bo7 (considering the winner of winners bracket plays the winner of losers bracket, one of whom the winner of winners bracket will have knocked down in winner bracket finals) oo
still MIGHT be at dallas TT
|
|
|
I'm all for ensuring that meaningful matches between established, skilled players occur on day 1. But in a game where the distinction between #16 and #17 is razor thin, this system is a bit too favorable to those players who did well early. I'd like to see them double the number of "seeded" spots to 32. It wouldn't be perfect, but I think it's a better balance of "we get to see good matches from the start" with "players not in the seeded section still have a legit chance".
Other than that, the format looks excellent to me. (And perfectly intelligible with a little bit of thought; seriously, folks, it's not that tough.)
|
honestly no reason to show up to MLG and play flight tickets with this format unless you are seeded or the best player in the world.
|
Wow they probably have turned off so many international players who considered going because of this:/
|
Yeah, they had the same problem with Halo. Basically the only way to get onto a good team was to join (since there's a team of 4) an open spot by making your name by either being really good at FFA or begging pros to play with you. Now that there's only 1 player, basically no one will break top 16 that was already there. Just too many games, nothing to do with skill.
|
On February 26 2011 16:24 DystopiaX wrote:
Yeah, they had the same problem with Halo. Basically the only way to get onto a good team was to join (since there's a team of 4) an open spot by making your name by either being really good at FFA or begging pros to play with you. Now that there's only 1 player, basically no one will break top 16 that was already there. Just too many games, nothing to do with skill.
Yep,
play an entire 256 man, best of three, double elim tournament friday until early morning
Play 4 best of 5s just to seed into a championship bracket
play the championship bracket
I would be surprised if any pro could really play top shape through that and beat completely rested "seeded" players. It's not that they seed players, it's the humongous advantage they get.
|
On February 26 2011 09:23 deathly rat wrote:
Seems like a pretty good system to me since the top players don't have to wade through a million matches, and it is still an open competition that anyone can enter (which i reallly like the concept of).
As far as I understand the extended series is a feature of winners bracket/ losers bracket system, which is seen as a more fair system than straight knock out since you might face the overall winner in the very first round.
One of the things that makes a "top player" is going through the gauntlet and wading through the millions of matches. It is ridiculously unfair that not only do the top 16 basically have no pressure of immediate elimination like every other participant but, also that one of the top 16 seeds could have the worst weekend of his life and place no lower than 32nd. He'll earn the 10 points that 32nd place provides and more than likely be seeded in the next tourney since no one under 32nd place earned any points.
I'm all for giving players that have shown consistency an advantage by seeding them and giving them an easier path to the finals. What MLG have done with this format is not only give them an advantage but, also offered them protection and a shortcut to top 32 for walking through the doors. NO ONE deserves that.
|
I don't know about the pool play (sounds cool though, we'll see), the new format is great on the whole. You definitely need a format that rewards the top seeds. These are not isolated, nubb-filled tournaments. It's a regular season with a championship match.
Although each regular season event has much lower prize money than the championship, placing well in the regular season will increase your chances of scoring big at the championships.
So, the format is great for all involved:
1. Exciting for viewers:
---> Culminates in a massive, $50,000 (which i guess is actually $100,000+ all totalled together) LIVE tournament, which makes it super exciting for the viewers.
2. Fair for players.
----> Those who place consistently well will be rewarded, with the biggest reward coming at the end.
This prevents 50 Koreans (or Europeans) being like ROFL LOLBBQ I'll just go for the finals!
|
On February 26 2011 16:36 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:23 deathly rat wrote:
Seems like a pretty good system to me since the top players don't have to wade through a million matches, and it is still an open competition that anyone can enter (which i reallly like the concept of).
As far as I understand the extended series is a feature of winners bracket/ losers bracket system, which is seen as a more fair system than straight knock out since you might face the overall winner in the very first round. One of the things that makes a "top player" is going through the gauntlet and wading through the millions of matches. It is ridiculously unfair that not only do the top 16 basically have no pressure of immediate elimination like every other participant but, also that one of the top 16 seeds could have the worst weekend of his life and place no lower than 32nd. He'll earn the 10 points that 32nd place provides and more than likely be seeded in the next tourney since no one under 32nd place earned any points. I'm all for giving players that have shown consistency an advantage by seeding them and giving them an easier path to the finals. What MLG have done with this format is not only give them an advantage but, also offered them protection and a shortcut to top 32 for walking through the doors. NO ONE deserves that.
also take note that on the next tournament the player is gonna lose some of his points which will affect his placement.
MLG will be having lan centers do mini MLG tournaments where ppl can gain points to get a better seeding/placing.
So no top 16 players aren't gonna stay in there forever.
|
On February 26 2011 16:36 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:23 deathly rat wrote:
Seems like a pretty good system to me since the top players don't have to wade through a million matches, and it is still an open competition that anyone can enter (which i reallly like the concept of).
As far as I understand the extended series is a feature of winners bracket/ losers bracket system, which is seen as a more fair system than straight knock out since you might face the overall winner in the very first round. One of the things that makes a "top player" is going through the gauntlet and wading through the millions of matches. It is ridiculously unfair that not only do the top 16 basically have no pressure of immediate elimination like every other participant but, also that one of the top 16 seeds could have the worst weekend of his life and place no lower than 32nd. He'll earn the 10 points that 32nd place provides and more than likely be seeded in the next tourney since no one under 32nd place earned any points. I'm all for giving players that have shown consistency an advantage by seeding them and giving them an easier path to the finals. What MLG have done with this format is not only give them an advantage but, also offered them protection and a shortcut to top 32 for walking through the doors. NO ONE deserves that.
If you're bottom of the group ("32nd") and the person from the Open Tournament stomps you in his running through the gauntlet, you're not getting those 10 points just for showing up. This isn't really an unlikely scenario, either - but it does LIMIT how many people are going to drop out from the preferential seeding to 1 per group in the first tournament. That's honestly fine - it really ends up not being that dissimilar to dropping out of code A in the GSL. (Do awful in the group play AND get beaten by someone new who qualified before you lose your spot)
|
On February 26 2011 16:27 dacthehork wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 16:24 DystopiaX wrote:
Yeah, they had the same problem with Halo. Basically the only way to get onto a good team was to join (since there's a team of 4) an open spot by making your name by either being really good at FFA or begging pros to play with you. Now that there's only 1 player, basically no one will break top 16 that was already there. Just too many games, nothing to do with skill. Yep, play an entire 256 man, best of three, double elim tournament friday until early morning Play 4 best of 5s just to seed into a championship bracket play the championship bracket I would be surprised if any pro could really play top shape through that and beat completely rested "seeded" players. It's not that they seed players, it's the humongous advantage they get.
The only time an amateur player will get to play a pro(top16) is when they make it out of the open bracket, and it will be on the second day after they're fully rested....
so you're argument bout non seeded players not being fully rested to play against seeded players is false.
|
For anyone not understanding the problem with the Extended series rule in MLG:
Purpose of the extended series rule(1):
The extended series rule purpose is:
When player 1 has a better record than player 2 in the relevant match history the player has a right to keep this plus record going into the coming match.
When using this kind of rule, in order for the advantage gained to be objectively fair it has to comply to one of the following rules:
1a. All relevant match history is accounted for (i.e. all games played in tournament) when computing the advantage given.
1b. The two players can be assumed to have performed equally good in matches not accounted for.
Problem (1)
MLG's extended series rule does not comply to one of the above stated rule as:
1a. Only one match is taken into account when computing the advantage gained.
1b. Player 1, gaining an advantage from the rule can be assumed to have lost 1 more game than player 2 which isn't taken into account.
As such, player 1 should be penalized in some way for loosing more "other" games than his opponent the same way he is getting rewarded winning more games than his opponent.
Counterargument (2)
Player 1 should still be premiered as he remained in the winner bracket longer and thus is expected to have met on average stiffer competition.
Problem (2)
Player 1 has already been rewarded for his on average stiffer competitions. For each game player 1 played in the winners bracket player 2 played the double amount of games minus one(2n-1).
Conclusion
"Extended series rule" (meeting either criteria 1a or 1b) and "Winner bracket having fewer rounds" (meeting criteria 1b) is both fair when used independently. In that case they both gives rightful advantage to players having met stiffer competition or posted better results. Them used in combination gives an overbalanced advantage for winning certain games and no compensation for winning others.
When an extended series is warranted
In a double elimination tournament, extended series should only be used for the first round of the lower bracket. When used in the first round of the lower bracket, player 1 should receive compensation for having won more games than his opponent irrespectively of the two players having met before or not.
|
Also, it's a much less extreme format than what is currently place in Korea at the GSL.
If you're a low seed in the GSL, you have zero chance at winning anything at all. And that's assuming you're already in Code A. Code A players don't win anything except a chance to play in the Code S ("The Championship Bracket") NEXT TOURNAMENT.
Heh, and if you're not in Code A, good luck even qualifying for Code A.
Aside from GSL favouring high seeds even more than MLG, MLG is essentially a condensed version of GSL. Especially now that they both have pool play.
|
On February 26 2011 16:45 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 16:27 dacthehork wrote:On February 26 2011 16:24 DystopiaX wrote:
Yeah, they had the same problem with Halo. Basically the only way to get onto a good team was to join (since there's a team of 4) an open spot by making your name by either being really good at FFA or begging pros to play with you. Now that there's only 1 player, basically no one will break top 16 that was already there. Just too many games, nothing to do with skill. Yep, play an entire 256 man, best of three, double elim tournament friday until early morning Play 4 best of 5s just to seed into a championship bracket play the championship bracket I would be surprised if any pro could really play top shape through that and beat completely rested "seeded" players. It's not that they seed players, it's the humongous advantage they get. The only time an amateur player will get to play a pro(top16) is when they make it out of the open bracket, and it will be on the second day after they're fully rested.... so you're argument bout non seeded players not being fully rested to play against seeded players is false.
Not sure it's an official schedule, but the schedule listed by Hoju http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=8069927 seems to indicate that the player doesn't get to have a full day to rest. They play through the 264 man open tournament until mid-evening saturday, then group play for championship starts as well as the first two championship losers brackets. And championship play completes on Sunday. So when do the open bracket players get to rest between the open bracket and championship bracket?
This is especially relevant for people that lose the first round in the open tournament, as EVERY losers round game for the open tournament will take place on Saturday before they even get to play in the championship losers bracket.
Thank you Blueblister for that very well constructed post.
|
Extended Series is staying nuff said, and besides it brings out the best in players. Example Fenix vs Axlav.
|
On February 26 2011 13:09 Response wrote:
apparently I'm in FXO and I didnt even know it T_T
My apologies. Fixed.
|
On February 26 2011 16:53 applejuice wrote:
Also, it's a much less extreme format than what is currently place in Korea at the GSL.
If you're a low seed in the GSL, you have zero chance at winning anything at all. And that's assuming you're already in Code A. Code A players don't win anything except a chance to play in the Code S ("The Championship Bracket") NEXT TOURNAMENT.
Heh, and if you're not in Code A, good luck even qualifying for Code A.
Aside from GSL favouring high seeds even more than MLG, MLG is essentially a condensed version of GSL. Especially now that they both have pool play.
But the problem is that it is condensed...playing for one and a half days straight (minus sleep, meal time) will make any beastly player's play suffer. They may be better than a top 16 player, but won't be able to prove it.
|
how are they playing for one and a half day str8?
You get 8 hours of sleep till the next day(Sat).
|
Australia7069 Posts
I'm really hoping that this is one of those things that SEEMS confusing but makes sense when you see it played out. I have a general idea of whats going on, but isn't there an easier way to seed people into a tournament instead of having like, 3 tournament and sutff? ergg
|
On February 26 2011 16:56 zaii wrote:
Extended Series is staying nuff said, and besides it brings out the best in players. Example Fenix vs Axlav.
Please, try to meet an logical argumentative post with logical argument of your own. Your claim that Fenix vs Axlav was a good game because of the extended series rule doesn't hold water.
|
On February 26 2011 17:06 zaii wrote:
how are they playing for one and a half day str8?
You get 8 hours of sleep till the next day(Sat).
Yeah, but 8-10 hours of straight starcraft other than sleeping doesn't make it any better. Arguing that this is fair for open bracket people is senseless...starting fresh vs. playing for at least 8 hours prior (no break right into championships) and almost as long the day before is no contest.
|
On February 26 2011 17:12 Blueblister wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 16:56 zaii wrote:
Extended Series is staying nuff said, and besides it brings out the best in players. Example Fenix vs Axlav. Please, try to meet an logical argumentative post with logical argument of your own. Your claim that Fenix vs Axlav was a good game because of the extended series rule doesn't hold water.
I said brings out the best in players. Read it again.
Coming back from a 0-3 deficit and winning didn't bring out the best in Axlav?
|
Just curious why it says "23. LG.masq (T) - 620" since I have no team and haven't been affiliated with LG.
|
On February 26 2011 17:18 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 17:12 Blueblister wrote:On February 26 2011 16:56 zaii wrote:
Extended Series is staying nuff said, and besides it brings out the best in players. Example Fenix vs Axlav. Please, try to meet an logical argumentative post with logical argument of your own. Your claim that Fenix vs Axlav was a good game because of the extended series rule doesn't hold water. I said brings out the best in players. Read it again. Coming back from a 0-3 deficit and winning didn't bring out the best in Axlav?
So a rule where one player is given a 50% health handicap is good in your opinion? It will bring out the best in the player if he wins!!!
MLG is keeping the rule because they like it and its used in halo, doubt anyone can change their mind.
|
|
|
On February 26 2011 17:16 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 17:06 zaii wrote:
how are they playing for one and a half day str8?
You get 8 hours of sleep till the next day(Sat). Yeah, but 8-10 hours of straight starcraft other than sleeping doesn't make it any better. Arguing that this is fair for open bracket people is senseless...starting fresh vs. playing for at least 8 hours prior (no break right into championships) and almost as long the day before is no contest.
Open bracket players have to earn there way to pool play. Don't underestimate players who are dedicated and skilled. Also if an open bracket player keeps winning he plays less matches.
|
On February 26 2011 17:22 halvorg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 17:18 zaii wrote:On February 26 2011 17:12 Blueblister wrote:On February 26 2011 16:56 zaii wrote:
Extended Series is staying nuff said, and besides it brings out the best in players. Example Fenix vs Axlav. Please, try to meet an logical argumentative post with logical argument of your own. Your claim that Fenix vs Axlav was a good game because of the extended series rule doesn't hold water. I said brings out the best in players. Read it again. Coming back from a 0-3 deficit and winning didn't bring out the best in Axlav? MLG is keeping the rule because they like it and its used in halo, doubt anyone can change their mind.
Used to Halo? you do know they changed both Halo and SC2 formats from last year right...
This is a new format for both games on the circuit.
|
On February 26 2011 17:28 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 17:22 halvorg wrote:On February 26 2011 17:18 zaii wrote:On February 26 2011 17:12 Blueblister wrote:On February 26 2011 16:56 zaii wrote:
Extended Series is staying nuff said, and besides it brings out the best in players. Example Fenix vs Axlav. Please, try to meet an logical argumentative post with logical argument of your own. Your claim that Fenix vs Axlav was a good game because of the extended series rule doesn't hold water. I said brings out the best in players. Read it again. Coming back from a 0-3 deficit and winning didn't bring out the best in Axlav? MLG is keeping the rule because they like it and its used in halo, doubt anyone can change their mind. Used to Halo? you do know they changed both Halo and SC2 formats from last year right... This is a new format for both games on the circuit.
Are you saying extended series is a new format for both games? This whole string of quotes has been about extended series.
|
Interesting write up and looking at the speculation about the groups MLG should produce some great games. Really looking forward to those events, one thing i do want is a adjusting map pool depending on what is on ladder or being used most in tournaments.
|
On February 26 2011 17:18 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 17:12 Blueblister wrote:On February 26 2011 16:56 zaii wrote:
Extended Series is staying nuff said, and besides it brings out the best in players. Example Fenix vs Axlav. Please, try to meet an logical argumentative post with logical argument of your own. Your claim that Fenix vs Axlav was a good game because of the extended series rule doesn't hold water. I said brings out the best in players. Read it again. Coming back from a 0-3 deficit and winning didn't bring out the best in Axlav?
I don't know if him being in a 0-3 deficit was why Axlav performed or not, but it was certainly not because of a certain rule . As I explained in my earlier post extended series in combination with double elimination gives inconsistent and overbalanced advantage to some players.
If you want people people to be able to come back from a 0-3 deficit, randomly picking some matches as bo5 is more fair than using the extended series rule <3
|
After thinking about the format for a while, I don't mind as much. I had a quick question about the pool play with the Open qualifier.
I'm gonna use iNcontroL just as an example for ease of imagination.
So would Day 1,
group A look like: jinro vs huk, Machine vs Slush, Jinro vs Machine, huk vs Slush, Machine vs huk, Slush vs Jinro.
(3 Bo3s per player)
Hypothetical Open: iNcontroL wins 256 -> 128 -> 64 -> 32 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 to qualify (6 Bo3s)
Day 2
Group A: iNcontrol v jinro, incontroL v Huk, iNcontroL v Slush, iNcontroL v Machine
(4 Bo3s) for iNcontroL
(1 Bo3) for seeded players.
Day 3
Championship Bracket?
16 -> 8 -> 4-> 2-> 1 Winner (4 Bo3s to win)
Any seeded/open player can potentially be 5th and start in Ro16, so max potential 4 Bo3s.
TOTAL Bo3s: Seeded players: Up to 8 Bo3s
TOTAL Bo3s: Open Winner: Up to 14 Bo3s
Logistically, Day 2 wouldn't make sense in this situation, because incontrol would be in such a disadvantageous situation having to endure 4 tough matches. There is a very big difference in games played between Open and Seeded players. This is what I gathered from the posts I've read so far but I may be wrong about the timing of the matches and if pool play will finish with seeded players on the first day.
While i'm still thinking hypothetically, being in the top 8 of the lower open bracket means that...
Day 1: 256 -> 128 -> 64 -> 32 -> 16 -> 8 (Loss) which is (5 Bo3s)
Day 2: No games? Waiting for pool play?
Day 3: 32 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2 -> winner (5 Bo3s to win)
TOTAL Open Winner (top4) = 14 Bo3s potentially to win
TOTAL Open Qualifier (5-12) = 10 Bo3s potentially to win
Does that make sense? Yes the Open Winners get a chance to improve their seed by playing in the pools with the top players, but thats just it they're top players and the Open winners are already at a disadvantage in an endurance standpoint. If i'm wrong about anything don't hesitate to point this out because I've been thinking about this a lot and there may be a lot i'm missing.
TL;DR - There is a huge timing issue in having to play a open bracket and THEN playing in a pool of stacked people as a reward for seeding. Endurancewise it is a huge disadvantage. Also, although there is a reward of improved seeding but potentially the top 4 Open qualifiers need to play 14 Bo3s to win the championship, whereas the 5-12 ranked Open qualifiers will only need to play 10 Bo3s to win the championship. =\
|
Not that Axslav isn't a beast but it was Inka who beat Fenix at MLG dallas ^^;
|
On February 26 2011 17:32 halvorg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 17:28 zaii wrote:On February 26 2011 17:22 halvorg wrote:On February 26 2011 17:18 zaii wrote:On February 26 2011 17:12 Blueblister wrote:On February 26 2011 16:56 zaii wrote:
Extended Series is staying nuff said, and besides it brings out the best in players. Example Fenix vs Axlav. Please, try to meet an logical argumentative post with logical argument of your own. Your claim that Fenix vs Axlav was a good game because of the extended series rule doesn't hold water. I said brings out the best in players. Read it again. Coming back from a 0-3 deficit and winning didn't bring out the best in Axlav? MLG is keeping the rule because they like it and its used in halo, doubt anyone can change their mind. Used to Halo? you do know they changed both Halo and SC2 formats from last year right... This is a new format for both games on the circuit. Are you saying extended series is a new format for both games? This whole string of quotes has been about extended series.
According to Lee, Extended series didn't come from Halo, It came from Counter Strike.
|
On February 26 2011 17:35 Ultramus wrote:
Not that Axslav isn't a beast but it was Inka who beat Fenix at MLG dallas ^^;
thx for the correction.
|
The format is quite interesting I have to say. I can actually understand the reasoning, but I have to see how this plays out in Dallas before jumping to any final conclusions. Timing wise over the course of three days, this seems rather complicated.
What's really good is that the four undefeated players of the Open-Tournament start on equal footing as the Top16 (besides having to play way more games, which obviously will be harder), so you can make your own luck as an Open-Tournament player.
On the other side, it is obvious that from the 12players who dropped one series in the Open-tournament, noone will ever win the tournament (going through several rounds against seeded players in a row, having only one life plus the threat of running into an Extended-series, never gonna happen). Since the format for those players is still more forgiving than a Single-Elimination would be, they probably won't have a reason to complain though, just collect as many points as possible.
I imagine it will be kinda hard to rise in rankings to get into the Top16, but we probably can only judge this after several events have been played out.
Extended series is still completely messed up though.
|
Surprised that Catz is ranked as low as he is. Neat to see InControl on the bubble. Drewbie obviously performed way better than I thought.
|
all I can say is
Thankfully there will be NASL and TSL to watch, I just see this system favoring the seeded players way too heavily. Maybe it won't be the case and playing all those games won't fatigue the open players, but I just see it happening.
|
It took me a while to wrap my head around how the format actually works, but now that i have i love it!
It should bring high level matches at every turn.
As for extended series, been there done that, not game breaking in any way.
|
On February 26 2011 19:28 dacthehork wrote:
all I can say is
Thankfully there will be NASL and TSL to watch, I just see this system favoring the seeded players way too heavily. Maybe it won't be the case and playing all those games won't fatigue the open players, but I just see it happening.
Yes because I too enjoy seeing some random player marine scv rush every game to get a cheesy route to the late stages of the tournament.
Screw these proven high level and consistently good players playing off against each other in the most competitive NA tournament to date, fuck that shit. Who would want to watch that?
ActionJesus 4evar!
|
I'm not sure if i understand this but the purpose seems to be to match the more accomplished players against each other for more even matches? Not sure if that makes sense, though since previous performance rarely/doesn't always show current skill
|
On February 26 2011 16:41 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 16:36 Hrrrrm wrote:On February 26 2011 09:23 deathly rat wrote:
Seems like a pretty good system to me since the top players don't have to wade through a million matches, and it is still an open competition that anyone can enter (which i reallly like the concept of).
As far as I understand the extended series is a feature of winners bracket/ losers bracket system, which is seen as a more fair system than straight knock out since you might face the overall winner in the very first round. One of the things that makes a "top player" is going through the gauntlet and wading through the millions of matches. It is ridiculously unfair that not only do the top 16 basically have no pressure of immediate elimination like every other participant but, also that one of the top 16 seeds could have the worst weekend of his life and place no lower than 32nd. He'll earn the 10 points that 32nd place provides and more than likely be seeded in the next tourney since no one under 32nd place earned any points. I'm all for giving players that have shown consistency an advantage by seeding them and giving them an easier path to the finals. What MLG have done with this format is not only give them an advantage but, also offered them protection and a shortcut to top 32 for walking through the doors. NO ONE deserves that. also take note that on the next tournament the player is gonna lose some of his points which will affect his placement. MLG will be having lan centers do mini MLG tournaments where ppl can gain points to get a better seeding/placing. So no top 16 players aren't gonna stay in there forever.
That's not guaranteed yet its just an idea they had.
Once again this isn't halo, the top 10 teams in the world will rarely ever lose to an underdog. In the end there are roughly 8-10 teams that ever have a chance at winning an MLG in halo.
In starcraft 2, upsets happen due to matchups build orders and maps, its why even the best players on ladder have a 57% win rate. Put that in MLG it means that there are 20-30 people that you could sya "hey, that guy has a chance at making finals".
MLG's too bent on the idea that their system is perfect and works for all games, its a system that works for xbox and FPS on consoles but NOT for starcraft 2.
|
On February 26 2011 20:02 ZlaSHeR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 16:41 zaii wrote:On February 26 2011 16:36 Hrrrrm wrote:On February 26 2011 09:23 deathly rat wrote:
Seems like a pretty good system to me since the top players don't have to wade through a million matches, and it is still an open competition that anyone can enter (which i reallly like the concept of).
As far as I understand the extended series is a feature of winners bracket/ losers bracket system, which is seen as a more fair system than straight knock out since you might face the overall winner in the very first round. One of the things that makes a "top player" is going through the gauntlet and wading through the millions of matches. It is ridiculously unfair that not only do the top 16 basically have no pressure of immediate elimination like every other participant but, also that one of the top 16 seeds could have the worst weekend of his life and place no lower than 32nd. He'll earn the 10 points that 32nd place provides and more than likely be seeded in the next tourney since no one under 32nd place earned any points. I'm all for giving players that have shown consistency an advantage by seeding them and giving them an easier path to the finals. What MLG have done with this format is not only give them an advantage but, also offered them protection and a shortcut to top 32 for walking through the doors. NO ONE deserves that. also take note that on the next tournament the player is gonna lose some of his points which will affect his placement. MLG will be having lan centers do mini MLG tournaments where ppl can gain points to get a better seeding/placing. So no top 16 players aren't gonna stay in there forever. That's not guaranteed yet its just an idea they had.
Registered Players will be seeded for each Event using the following criteria in this order: Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points*, Starcraft 2 LAN Center Rank Points**, and Starcraft 2 Online Qualifier Rank Points.
http://pro.majorleaguegaming.com/competitions/16#event_33_competition_format
|
On February 26 2011 19:55 Kazang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 19:28 dacthehork wrote:
all I can say is
Thankfully there will be NASL and TSL to watch, I just see this system favoring the seeded players way too heavily. Maybe it won't be the case and playing all those games won't fatigue the open players, but I just see it happening. Yes because I too enjoy seeing some random player marine scv rush every game to get a cheesy route to the late stages of the tournament. Screw these proven high level and consistently good players playing off against each other in the most competitive NA tournament to date, fuck that shit. Who would want to watch that? ActionJesus 4evar!
Erm the MLG system will actually mean that much less top players from abroad will come to MLGs, becaus they are at a huge disadvanage.
I kind of understand that they want to see a majority of local players in these tourneys, but to claim that the MLG system will mean better players skill-wise is absurd.
|
On February 26 2011 20:15 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 20:02 ZlaSHeR wrote:On February 26 2011 16:41 zaii wrote:On February 26 2011 16:36 Hrrrrm wrote:On February 26 2011 09:23 deathly rat wrote:
Seems like a pretty good system to me since the top players don't have to wade through a million matches, and it is still an open competition that anyone can enter (which i reallly like the concept of).
As far as I understand the extended series is a feature of winners bracket/ losers bracket system, which is seen as a more fair system than straight knock out since you might face the overall winner in the very first round. One of the things that makes a "top player" is going through the gauntlet and wading through the millions of matches. It is ridiculously unfair that not only do the top 16 basically have no pressure of immediate elimination like every other participant but, also that one of the top 16 seeds could have the worst weekend of his life and place no lower than 32nd. He'll earn the 10 points that 32nd place provides and more than likely be seeded in the next tourney since no one under 32nd place earned any points. I'm all for giving players that have shown consistency an advantage by seeding them and giving them an easier path to the finals. What MLG have done with this format is not only give them an advantage but, also offered them protection and a shortcut to top 32 for walking through the doors. NO ONE deserves that. also take note that on the next tournament the player is gonna lose some of his points which will affect his placement. MLG will be having lan centers do mini MLG tournaments where ppl can gain points to get a better seeding/placing. So no top 16 players aren't gonna stay in there forever. That's not guaranteed yet its just an idea they had. Show nested quote +Registered Players will be seeded for each Event using the following criteria in this order: Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points*, Starcraft 2 LAN Center Rank Points**, and Starcraft 2 Online Qualifier Rank Points. http://pro.majorleaguegaming.com/competitions/16#event_33_competition_format
So whoever is an above average player that can make it to/travel to the most lan centers, therefore accumulating points, can then pass potentially much better players and maybe even get into the top 16, meaning there will be even MORE pros who hvae to fight through the open bracket.
interesting
|
Oh god, MLG. Hopefully they will cast at least 3 or 4 matches.
|
I can't wait to hear the inevitable extended serie discussion in the next SotG. I can't see why MLG kept that rule. I hope they will make a better choice on the map selection.
The format confuses me a bit. I don't think giving outsiders such a big disadvantage is a good idea, but it should atleast ensure less noob bashing on stream.
|
The extended series adds too much luck in tournament format.
You shouldn't punish the losers that much, it ruins the game.
The only exception to the bo3 should be the argument of whether the loser's bracket champion should beat the winner's bracket champion once or twice. Thats the ONLY thing that should be in debate. This extended series crap is rediculous, and this tournament will never be taken as seriously as GSL.
|
On February 26 2011 09:09 Hoju wrote:
This just shows that MLG wants to top the GSL....
in complexity
LOL!!!, Yes I agree it takes its time to understand how the GSL and now MLG works, but still we get to see great games with great players, no matter at what point in the bracket.
|
Yea the extended series poll on this very site I think had a 60% dislike, and something like 15% undecided, while the rest voted yes for extended series. I just kind of dislikes MLG's argument of "we've always done it this way and we're huge so yea, screw off" as opposed to "well dear viewers it makes sense for the following reasons:" etc.
Even GSL's wonky format doesn't receive much in the way of complaints other than "what the heck is going on?!".
|
On February 26 2011 20:19 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 19:55 Kazang wrote:On February 26 2011 19:28 dacthehork wrote:
all I can say is
Thankfully there will be NASL and TSL to watch, I just see this system favoring the seeded players way too heavily. Maybe it won't be the case and playing all those games won't fatigue the open players, but I just see it happening. Yes because I too enjoy seeing some random player marine scv rush every game to get a cheesy route to the late stages of the tournament. Screw these proven high level and consistently good players playing off against each other in the most competitive NA tournament to date, fuck that shit. Who would want to watch that? ActionJesus 4evar! Erm the MLG system will actually mean that much less top players from abroad will come to MLGs, becaus they are at a huge disadvanage. I kind of understand that they want to see a majority of local players in these tourneys, but to claim that the MLG system will mean better players skill-wise is absurd.
You have to joking. Have you seen the top 16 seeded players?
6 out of the top16 are eu or korea based players, that's hardly a low showing for players travelling in from abroad.
MLG's system rewards players who play in MLG tournaments, same way GSL used a point based system to seed players into Code S.
MLG's system is actually far more open and accessible than the GSL's, with only 16 players starting in the seeded champion bracket, with the other 16 coming from the open bracket. GSL code S is 32 only seeded players, with 16 players from the open bracket (code A) getting a chance to play in Code S next season.
At MLG the Top 16 from the open bracket are guaranteed a place in the Top32 championship bracket, the equivalent of Code S.
|
I have to wholeheartedly agree with Kazang on the tournament being a more accessible championship. I guarantee some of our foreigners in Korea would love to have an opportunity at the bigger prize pool every season. We do hear them rant on SOTG about the code A prize pool and this format competes the best with those looking to carve their way in. Personally, I like it. I'll be rooting for the underdogs who make it out of qualifiers every MLG. It should be a lot of fun.
|
Well, it looks like MLG wants NASL to succeed, because with this system I just get deterred from watching it. Stick a fork in those buns!
|
MLG won't conflict with NASL anyways and vice versa.
|
This change is horrible from a competitive esport standpoint and good for an mma ppv esports standpoint -.-...
|
Well that's pretty damn complicated.
|
It may not be the most intuitive system, but it makes a lot of sense to me. You are rewarding consistency, which i think is a good thing, yet there's still the chance for no-names to win the whole thing. Pool Play ensures a minimum of 5(4 in pool play + min 1 in bracket) games for the seeded, probably best and most cheered for players. I also like the advantages you give players according to their pool play result. Winning a group guarantees a Top 6 finish, that should be enough incentive for everyone to play their best in group stage.
On a sidenote, the example given didn't help me very much. It took my a while to figure out why a specific player appeared at a specific place(higher seed always wins). Numbered matches and instead of using a fixed player, winner/loser of match X would have helped a lot.
TL:DR complicated, yet thought through; looking forward to it
|
On February 26 2011 17:34 theherder2 wrote:
After thinking about the format for a while, I don't mind as much. I had a quick question about the pool play with the Open qualifier.
I'm gonna use iNcontroL just as an example for ease of imagination.
So would Day 1,
group A look like: jinro vs huk, Machine vs Slush, Jinro vs Machine, huk vs Slush, Machine vs huk, Slush vs Jinro.
(3 Bo3s per player)
Hypothetical Open: iNcontroL wins 256 -> 128 -> 64 -> 32 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 to qualify (6 Bo3s)
Day 2
Group A: iNcontrol v jinro, incontroL v Huk, iNcontroL v Slush, iNcontroL v Machine
(4 Bo3s) for iNcontroL
(1 Bo3) for seeded players.
Day 3
Championship Bracket?
16 -> 8 -> 4-> 2-> 1 Winner (4 Bo3s to win)
Any seeded/open player can potentially be 5th and start in Ro16, so max potential 4 Bo3s.
TOTAL Bo3s: Seeded players: Up to 8 Bo3s
TOTAL Bo3s: Open Winner: Up to 14 Bo3s
Logistically, Day 2 wouldn't make sense in this situation, because incontrol would be in such a disadvantageous situation having to endure 4 tough matches. There is a very big difference in games played between Open and Seeded players. This is what I gathered from the posts I've read so far but I may be wrong about the timing of the matches and if pool play will finish with seeded players on the first day.
While i'm still thinking hypothetically, being in the top 8 of the lower open bracket means that...
Day 1: 256 -> 128 -> 64 -> 32 -> 16 -> 8 (Loss) which is (5 Bo3s)
Day 2: No games? Waiting for pool play?
Day 3: 32 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2 -> winner (5 Bo3s to win)
TOTAL Open Winner (top4) = 14 Bo3s potentially to win
TOTAL Open Qualifier (5-12) = 10 Bo3s potentially to win
Does that make sense? Yes the Open Winners get a chance to improve their seed by playing in the pools with the top players, but thats just it they're top players and the Open winners are already at a disadvantage in an endurance standpoint. If i'm wrong about anything don't hesitate to point this out because I've been thinking about this a lot and there may be a lot i'm missing.
TL;DR - There is a huge timing issue in having to play a open bracket and THEN playing in a pool of stacked people as a reward for seeding. Endurancewise it is a huge disadvantage. Also, although there is a reward of improved seeding but potentially the top 4 Open qualifiers need to play 14 Bo3s to win the championship, whereas the 5-12 ranked Open qualifiers will only need to play 10 Bo3s to win the championship. =\
If they feel its a disadvantage they can lose all four (Bo3 in group play) and be in the same position as their losers braket brethren. I think anyone would rather play four Bo3s with no penalty for losing and a chance to greatly improve their seeding in the Championship bracket
|
At first it says the top 16 from the Open bracket will join the Championship bracket (which adds to 32 players). Then it says there are 4 groups of 5 (20 players) for group play. I'm thoroughly confused.
|
On February 27 2011 02:10 caelym wrote:
At first it says the top 16 from the Open bracket will join the Championship bracket (which adds to 32 players). Then it says there are 4 groups of 5 (20 players) for group play. I'm thoroughly confused.
The pool play only decides seed positions for the Championship Bracket. It is played beforehand.
The problem I see is that this setup means we'll see the best players play the fewest games.
Add to that that their games are far less stressful because while the open tournament guys are fighting for their very survival in the tournament, the pool players just determine their seeding. As a seeded player, you can lose your first 4 games and still be in the tournament no problem. That's pretty ridiculous.
With a bigger Double Elimination bracket like they had in 2010, every match was a meaningful one.
|
On February 26 2011 17:34 theherder2 wrote:
After thinking about the format for a while, I don't mind as much. I had a quick question about the pool play with the Open qualifier.
I'm gonna use iNcontroL just as an example for ease of imagination.
So would Day 1,
group A look like: jinro vs huk, Machine vs Slush, Jinro vs Machine, huk vs Slush, Machine vs huk, Slush vs Jinro.
(3 Bo3s per player)
Hypothetical Open: iNcontroL wins 256 -> 128 -> 64 -> 32 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 to qualify (6 Bo3s)
Day 2
Group A: iNcontrol v jinro, incontroL v Huk, iNcontroL v Slush, iNcontroL v Machine
(4 Bo3s) for iNcontroL
(1 Bo3) for seeded players.
Day 3
Championship Bracket?
16 -> 8 -> 4-> 2-> 1 Winner (4 Bo3s to win)
Any seeded/open player can potentially be 5th and start in Ro16, so max potential 4 Bo3s.
TOTAL Bo3s: Seeded players: Up to 8 Bo3s
TOTAL Bo3s: Open Winner: Up to 14 Bo3s
Logistically, Day 2 wouldn't make sense in this situation, because incontrol would be in such a disadvantageous situation having to endure 4 tough matches. There is a very big difference in games played between Open and Seeded players. This is what I gathered from the posts I've read so far but I may be wrong about the timing of the matches and if pool play will finish with seeded players on the first day.
While i'm still thinking hypothetically, being in the top 8 of the lower open bracket means that...
Day 1: 256 -> 128 -> 64 -> 32 -> 16 -> 8 (Loss) which is (5 Bo3s)
Day 2: No games? Waiting for pool play?
Day 3: 32 -> 16 -> 8 -> 4 -> 2 -> winner (5 Bo3s to win)
TOTAL Open Winner (top4) = 14 Bo3s potentially to win
TOTAL Open Qualifier (5-12) = 10 Bo3s potentially to win
Does that make sense? Yes the Open Winners get a chance to improve their seed by playing in the pools with the top players, but thats just it they're top players and the Open winners are already at a disadvantage in an endurance standpoint. If i'm wrong about anything don't hesitate to point this out because I've been thinking about this a lot and there may be a lot i'm missing.
TL;DR - There is a huge timing issue in having to play a open bracket and THEN playing in a pool of stacked people as a reward for seeding. Endurancewise it is a huge disadvantage. Also, although there is a reward of improved seeding but potentially the top 4 Open qualifiers need to play 14 Bo3s to win the championship, whereas the 5-12 ranked Open qualifiers will only need to play 10 Bo3s to win the championship. =\
I think one thing you forgot to account for in this analysis is extended series. Most matches in the championship losers bracket will be extended series after the first round, simply because the top20 will have already played most of each other.
|
Generally the top 16 get traveling stipends from MLG. The point system is set up the way it is to encourage players to show up at all events. If you miss a single event, you could drop out of the top 16. This is how MLG secures its "star" players to return.
Also, I don't get the hate on extended series. This is an event played over a course of a weekend. The only real difference between an extended series and one that isn't is that you could possibly see more games between the two competitors and that the person who lost before has to win more.
The reasoning is that if you have say (this is only an example) Idra play Huk. Let's say Idra wins 2-0.
Idra goes on in the Winner's Bracket and Huk drops down into the Loser Bracket. Idra then loses to say Jinro and drops down into the Loser Bracket also. Huk wins out to face Idra in the Loser Bracket.
If Huk wins 2-1, he would advance though he technically lost more games to Idra than he won.
In a tournament with a loser's bracket, you want to ensure the best player/team advances. Thus, this is why extended series is used. I would think most tournaments with a loser's bracket played over a weekend would use an extended series.
All it means is that the series would have started 2-0 for Idra. Idra would have to win 2 games while Huk would have to win 4. The reason Huk is in the hole is his own doing for losing the first games. And, this means more games to be viewed if Huk wins the series.
This makes every game mean a lot more to the competitor. Sure, Idra might prefer the first and third map so he could just basically cede the 2nd game to the opponent and win 2-1 to advance. But, with extended series, it would make that decision stupid as he might play that opponent later and he is giving him a free win.
It's a good rule, in my opinion.
|
For those not understanding the system.
The Top 16 players in points will be the top 16 seeds in the Championship Bracket. They will use 2010 points for the first event and then switch to 2011 points after the first event.
Every other player will go to the OPEN tournament. (Max of 256 players).
They will play the tournament out until there is 4 players left in the Winner's Bracket and 12 players left in the Loser's Bracket. The Open bracket will not play out completely.
The 4 players left in the Winner's Bracket will join the top 16 players in points making 20 players in total. These 20 players will be split into 4 groups of 5 and play pool play against one another.
This will determine seedings for the 32 player Championship Bracket.
The 12 players joining from the Loser's Bracket in the Open will be the bottom 12 seeds in the Championship Bracket. The 5th place players in pool play in each group will be the 17-20 seeds. The 4th place players will be the 13-16 seeds. The 3rd place players will be the 9-12 seeds. The 2nd place players will be the 5-8 seeds. The 1st place players will be the 1-4 seeds.
Now, after having determined the seeds as show above. The players will be put into the tournament in a specific slot determined by their seed.
http://media.mlgpro.com/site/files/PoolPlaySimulated.htm
This ^ shows where their seed will be placed into the tournament.
1. Basically, 25-32 seeds will play each other.
2. The winners will face the 21-24 seeds.
3. The winners of that game will face the 5th place pool play players.
4. Winners of that face 4th place pool play players.
5. Winners of that face 3rd place.
6. Winners of that face 2nd place.
7. The 1st place players will face each other then.
8. The losers of the 1st place players will then play the winners in number 6 above.
9. The winners in number 8 above will then play each other.
10. The winners of number 7 will play each other.
11. The winner of number 9 and the loser of number 10 will play each other.
12. The winner of 11 will play the winner of number 10.
That should make it as clear as possible. (And, yes, for those keeping track... that means if you make the pool play you cannot finish worse than 24th.)
|
I think rather than try to spend time understanding this format I will just wait for djwheat and Day9 to explain it to me on the day of the tourney.
GL to MLG and much success in 2011
PS LOL @ extended series I hope SOTG talks about it again :D
|
Re: Format
never mind i hate my explanation. But it's not very complicated.
Re: Extended series
Extended series occurs because each MLG event is one continuous event. Maybe it will make more sense to some people if you imagine each match as a best-of-five, with a break in between. In some cases this break may be 1 day, but it could also be as short as an hour. If the players don't meet again in the tournament, then the best-of-five is never completed.
Re: Number of games
The top players play 10+ hours daily in preparation for a tournament, so I don't see this being an issue. Also, in all the e-sports I've watched, there is a bigger advantage going in "hot" than going in "cold." So I think there's an advantage, just that some people have it backwards. But there's nothing that can be done about that in an event that goes on over one weekend.
|
From a fans perspective, I'm all for this new pool play system. It'll guarantee that more great matches will be played (the top 16 players will have to play each other). Also, if you know who your pool is going to be heading into the tournament, players can prepare for those opponents specifically. From a players perspective, I can understand how players not in the top 16 will be upset. I'm just looking forward to watching these tournaments from a spectators point of view.
|
I personally liked extended series, but all the bitching you had about it, why didn't you just take it out -.-
|
On February 27 2011 05:05 Corrik wrote:
Generally the top 16 get traveling stipends from MLG. The point system is set up the way it is to encourage players to show up at all events. If you miss a single event, you could drop out of the top 16. This is how MLG secures its "star" players to return.
Also, I don't get the hate on extended series. This is an event played over a course of a weekend. The only real difference between an extended series and one that isn't is that you could possibly see more games between the two competitors and that the person who lost before has to win more.
The reasoning is that if you have say (this is only an example) Idra play Huk. Let's say Idra wins 2-0.
Idra goes on in the Winner's Bracket and Huk drops down into the Loser Bracket. Idra then loses to say Jinro and drops down into the Loser Bracket also. Huk wins out to face Idra in the Loser Bracket.
If Huk wins 2-1, he would advance though he technically lost more games to Idra than he won.
In a tournament with a loser's bracket, you want to ensure the best player/team advances. Thus, this is why extended series is used. I would think most tournaments with a loser's bracket played over a weekend would use an extended series.
All it means is that the series would have started 2-0 for Idra. Idra would have to win 2 games while Huk would have to win 4. The reason Huk is in the hole is his own doing for losing the first games. And, this means more games to be viewed if Huk wins the series.
This makes every game mean a lot more to the competitor. Sure, Idra might prefer the first and third map so he could just basically cede the 2nd game to the opponent and win 2-1 to advance. But, with extended series, it would make that decision stupid as he might play that opponent later and he is giving him a free win.
It's a good rule, in my opinion.
Doesn't matter. It's been determined already that the rule is subjective. In your case, Huk also won more TOTAL games than Idra won, not to mention that he would also have defeated more opponents and the fact that he would have advanced further through the tournament ( won more rounds).
I would prefer that Huk advances while you would prefer that Idra gets a second chance because you like to give special preference to personal records within the tournament.
Neither way is more correct than the other. It's just up to personal preference. It's just that no other tournament has this rule so it understandable rubs people the wrong way. And the fact that MLG insists that the rule is logical when in fact its implementation completely subjective.
|
Australia8532 Posts
Maybe there has been some response to map pool in the previous 13 pages but oh well.. ill ask - what about the map pool and is there room to move between different MLGs with regards to maps?
Also - extended series isn't the end of the world  makes things interesting..
|
On February 27 2011 08:50 bkrow wrote:Maybe there has been some response to map pool in the previous 13 pages but oh well.. ill ask - what about the map pool and is there room to move between different MLGs with regards to maps? Also - extended series isn't the end of the world makes things interesting..
Heres you're answer, Just scroll down.
http://twitter.com/#!/MLGLEE
|
On February 26 2011 09:14 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:12 Karthane wrote:
Wait, after all the complaints about extended series you still kept it? Seriously? half of the community hated it and other half liked it. Also god damn it Slasher.
Actually, there was a poll in the live update feed of MLG last time asking if you liked Extended Series or not. It was "No" dominated. I would say...70%ish percent. Then they immediately pulled the poll from the feed.
|
Why aren't the top 16 just playing against the 16 that make it out of the open bracket. This format just seems like a joke to protect the "top" players.
The 16 players from the open bracket should just be thrown into a 32 player bracket with the "top" 16 and play best of three matches to the finals.
|
On February 27 2011 11:04 Cobbbler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 09:14 zaii wrote:On February 26 2011 09:12 Karthane wrote:
Wait, after all the complaints about extended series you still kept it? Seriously? half of the community hated it and other half liked it. Also god damn it Slasher. Actually, there was a poll in the live update feed of MLG last time asking if you liked Extended Series or not. It was "No" dominated. I would say...70%ish percent. Then they immediately pulled the poll from the feed.
Strange how its only 57% here and 70ish there?
Why aren't the top 16 just playing against the 16 that make it out of the open bracket. This format just seems like a joke to protect the "top" players.
Top 16 have to fight each other then fight the 16 that come out of the open bracket, Thats all to get a good placing for the championship bracket if i remember correctly.
|
On February 27 2011 11:49 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +Why aren't the top 16 just playing against the 16 that make it out of the open bracket. This format just seems like a joke to protect the "top" players.
Top 16 have to fight each other then fight the 16 that come out of the open bracket, Thats all to get a good placing for the championship bracket if i remember correctly.
16 from open bracket fight each other down to 4 then get placed in the pools.
Group A: HuK (1), Jinro (8), SLush (9), Machine (16)
Group B: KiWiKaKi (2), Tyler (7), qxc (10), Agh (15)
Group C: TT1 (3), Drewbie (6), IdrA (11), TLO (14)
Group D: SeleCt (4), PainUser (5), Socke (12), Ret (13)
Each group will have one player added to it, the four remaining players left from the Open Bracket. Seed 17 will be in Group A, Seed 18 in Group B, Seed 19 in Group C, and Seed 20 in Group D.
|
|
|
Extended series. MLG is still a joke.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 27 2011 11:49 zaii wrote:
Strange how its only 57% here and 70ish there?
What people forget to mention when they throw around the 57% against Extended Series (and thereby imply that 43% are in favour of it), is that only 24% were actually for the extended series, and 20% had no opinion.
A 24% approval rate clearly shows an overwhelming majority opinion against the extended series on Team Liquid. Which makes sense, you know, since it's absolutely retarded and doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
|
On February 27 2011 13:14 Bobster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 11:49 zaii wrote:
Strange how its only 57% here and 70ish there? What people forget to mention when they throw around the 57% against Extended Series (and thereby imply that 43% are in favour of it), is that only 24% were actually for the extended series, and 20% had no opinion. A 24% approval rate clearly shows an overwhelming majority opinion against the extended series on Team Liquid. Which makes sense, you know, since it's absolutely retarded and doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
If you haven't noticed, a large of amount of the Team Liquid community hates everything. I doubt a poll asking anything positive would result in anything above 40% yes.Try a poll like: "Is Husky good for the SC2 community?" and see how the sheep vote.
You must have missed the memo: the pros either support it now, or have stopped complaining about it. Be nice if the "haters" would follow suit.
|
Well guess you'll have to wait for MLG clap to get on SOTG or the forums to talk bout the extended series being in the 2011 format.
Never understood why ppl wanted to take out extended series, Always thought it was fair.
|
On February 27 2011 13:42 applejuice wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 13:14 Bobster wrote:On February 27 2011 11:49 zaii wrote:
Strange how its only 57% here and 70ish there? What people forget to mention when they throw around the 57% against Extended Series (and thereby imply that 43% are in favour of it), is that only 24% were actually for the extended series, and 20% had no opinion. A 24% approval rate clearly shows an overwhelming majority opinion against the extended series on Team Liquid. Which makes sense, you know, since it's absolutely retarded and doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you haven't noticed, a large of amount of the Team Liquid community hates everything. I doubt a poll asking anything positive would result in anything above 40% yes.Try a poll like: "Is Husky good for the SC2 community?" and see how the sheep vote. You must have missed the memo: the pros either support it now, or have stopped complaining about it. Be nice if the "haters" would follow suit.
What, this makes no sense. How about you ask,
"Is Day9 good for the community?"? Do you think that'd get below 40%?
By the way, I'm totally against extended series, probably the worst and the most nonsense rule ever created.
|
In all of your misplaced hatred of extended series, it seems like you're all blind to the true blasphemy of bo3 finals.
I mean extended series is up for (a very long stupid) discussion, but holy crap bo3 finals, are you serious...
|
I am very much confused about the whole pool play thing...
Ow... my head...
|
Regarding the extended series. There was a very good statistical analysis done here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=168345
From the OP:
When considering individual matches, the extended series appears to
perform well to make sure the better player continues in the
tournament. In this sense, it fulfills its purpose.
But when looking at the larger picture, it appears that the extended
series has little effect on the outcome. While the extended series
rule does slightly improve outcomes, these differences are not
particularly significant compared to the overall double elimination
format.
This was done in November after MLG Dallas. From his models, there is no significant difference between the extended series and normal double elimination on the overall winner of the tournament, though the extended series does do a good job of letting the "better" player continue.
I'd suggest reading this for a very good analysis of the extended series.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
|
|
|
United States7481 Posts
On February 27 2011 15:42 robmixstyle wrote:
bo3 finals? t.t
extended bo7 or 2xbo3, when you think about it it's kind of unreasonable to ask more of players after they've been playing potentially 20 series over the course of a weekend. it seems anti-climactic but there's no better solution in my eyes.
|
Yea, MLG Lee just told me the Finals becomes a BO7 because of extended series.
|
oh poor machine
being in the group with Jinro and HuK
|
Finals doesn't have to be an extended series. It just could be. Even if it was it still wouldn't be a true Bo7.
|
|
|
Ehh... I can't say I'm a fan of this layout (especially when I have to follow it by constantly scrolling up and down on the bracket) but I guess I won't have much of a choice.
|
(I won't touch on the biggest issue here; That who benefits from the rule is based on luck.)
On February 27 2011 05:05 Corrik wrote:
Generally the top 16 get traveling stipends from MLG. The point system is set up the way it is to encourage players to show up at all events. If you miss a single event, you could drop out of the top 16. This is how MLG secures its "star" players to return.
Also, I don't get the hate on extended series. This is an event played over a course of a weekend. The only real difference between an extended series and one that isn't is that you could possibly see more games between the two competitors and that the person who lost before has to win more.
The reasoning is that if you have say (this is only an example) Idra play Huk. Let's say Idra wins 2-0.
Idra goes on in the Winner's Bracket and Huk drops down into the Loser Bracket. Idra then loses to say Jinro and drops down into the Loser Bracket also. Huk wins out to face Idra in the Loser Bracket.
If Huk wins 2-1, he would advance though he technically lost more games to Idra than he won.
In a tournament with a loser's bracket, you want to ensure the best player/team advances. Thus, this is why extended series is used. I would think most tournaments with a loser's bracket played over a weekend would use an extended series.
All it means is that the series would have started 2-0 for Idra. Idra would have to win 2 games while Huk would have to win 4. The reason Huk is in the hole is his own doing for losing the first games. And, this means more games to be viewed if Huk wins the series.
This makes every game mean a lot more to the competitor. Sure, Idra might prefer the first and third map so he could just basically cede the 2nd game to the opponent and win 2-1 to advance. But, with extended series, it would make that decision stupid as he might play that opponent later and he is giving him a free win.
It's a good rule, in my opinion.
Not true if you read my explanation on page 10.
Wins in Winners Bracket already move a competitor further forward than wins in Losers Bracket does (win in WB ≈ two wins in LB). Thats fair! The extended series rule artificially inflates the the importance of the Winners Bracket even more and at the same time undermines the meaning of having a Losers Bracket.
In other words: Every game in WB means even more, LB games means even less. If are knocked down to LB you might as well go home already.
|
On February 27 2011 05:05 Corrik wrote:
Also, I don't get the hate on extended series. This is an event played over a course of a weekend. The only real difference between an extended series and one that isn't is that you could possibly see more games between the two competitors and that the person who lost before has to win more.
The thing that you're missing is that both players have already lost.
The reasoning is that if you have say (this is only an example) Idra play Huk. Let's say Idra wins 2-0.
Idra goes on in the Winner's Bracket and Huk drops down into the Loser Bracket. Idra then loses to say Jinro and drops down into the Loser Bracket also. Huk wins out to face Idra in the Loser Bracket.
If Huk wins 2-1, he would advance though he technically lost more games to Idra than he won.
In a tournament with a loser's bracket, you want to ensure the best player/team advances. Thus, this is why extended series is used. I would think most tournaments with a loser's bracket played over a weekend would use an extended series.
All it means is that the series would have started 2-0 for Idra. Idra would have to win 2 games while Huk would have to win 4. The reason Huk is in the hole is his own doing for losing the first games. And, this means more games to be viewed if Huk wins the series.
So you think it's fair that while Huk is penalised because he lost against IdrA previously (in what is essentially a completely different match), IdrA is given an advantage because he lost to someone else, who he may never actually have to face again in the tournament?
They're both in the losers bracket, which means both players have lost a game, therefore they should both be equal, previous results shouldn't matter in the tournament (other than the grand final, since one player hasn't actually lost at all).
This makes every game mean a lot more to the competitor. Sure, Idra might prefer the first and third map so he could just basically cede the 2nd game to the opponent and win 2-1 to advance. But, with extended series, it would make that decision stupid as he might play that opponent later and he is giving him a free win.
It's a good rule, in my opinion.
It's a terrible rule, imo.
|
On February 27 2011 15:47 Antoine wrote:extended bo7 or 2xbo3, when you think about it it's kind of unreasonable to ask more of players after they've been playing potentially 20 series over the course of a weekend. it seems anti-climactic but there's no better solution in my eyes.
Wouldn't a better solution be to have a best of 5 finals and take the bad extended series rule out of the tournament? Somehow that option is being overlooked even though extended series is causing a lot of problems and limitations here. GSL is pretty competative and well respected without an extended series rule in place, just saying. Use a well organized SC tournament as your model, not Halo.
|
So after all the outrage we still have:
- bo3 final
- extended series
Reason: short on production time.
Ugh. I rather have the group stage be best of 1 and get rid of the stupid extended series gimmick and make ro16 and 8 bo3, semis bo5, and finals bo7 with single elimination.
|
It only states extended series for bracket play, if someone meets in the pool play for a BO3 does that not count towards an extended series if they were to meet later in the championship bracket?
Because if series extend through pool play, the finals can eventually lead to the loser bracket winner having an ADVANTAGE over the winner's bracket winner.
|
|
|
make it public yo, can't read.
|
I don't post much but this is a very interesting thread. First of all I'd like to agree with everyone that Bo3 Finals is completely absurd. I am not sure how long an average match lasts but I would say it is under 20 minutes (probably close to 15 minutes). In a Bo3 the finals will be over in less than an hour. Which seems quite dull to me. Overall this tournament seems amazing but the climax will occur very quickly. I'd personally like to see a Bo7 would be so much more exciting.
Another thing that sparked my interest was the debate on the extended series. Most people seem to hate it and there are a few that seem to like it. I personally don't like it because it severely punishes the player who was put into the Losers Bracket. One he has to claw his was back up. Two if he does end up playing against the person who knocked him down he is already at a disadvantage 0-2 or 1-2. Which makes his path to victory even harder. Each series should be independent of one another because the game play will be different because of the maps and even spawning location.
Just as an example I'm not sure how many people remember Jinro vs Idra in the most recent GSL. In Set 2 they were close rush distances and Jinro was able to bunker Idra's ramp. Think if something like that happened again in MLG and Idra is thrown into Losers Bracket and later on both of them play and this time on Metalopolis they are cross positions. The game is completely different. Of course I'm a Jinro fan so he's still win JINRO FIGHTING!
I agree with the seeding top players. I remember last MLG it was boring watching some of the games where a pro would stomp a noob (a noob in comparison to the pro not to me since I'm a noob too). But with this format new players will have a tough time. Just to become on of the top 4 players in the Open Bracket requires you to win 16 games (if my math is correct) and then another 4 games within your pool play. So that is 20-28 games you have to play to be Seeded 1-20 before you even start the Championship Bracket. That is quite the marathon of games for new people to the MLG. And because of this I can see some top foreign players not coming. Even though they are amazing, dedicated and highly skilled it will be tough to play against a rested Jinro, Idra, Huk, qxc etc etc.
Finally I'm just wondering if the map set has been revealed and who will be casting this event. Will it be djWheat and Day[9] again?
|
I don't think they realize how mentally and physically draining this game can be compared to a shooter. Even with last season's set up you could see the players in the losers bracket were looking and playing differently towards the end. Bad set up.
|
I like this, good depiction of a big flaw with extended series.
I understand that the extended series is supposed to consider all matches of two players together as a single event, but in truth thats not how it feels later on at all. Two players playing in Ro1 Winners of a tournament will not have as much pressure as them meeting later on in the Losers Finals.
Pretending that it is the same with this rule does not enhance the game at all. If a player knocked down to the losers brackets wins enough games to meet an opponent again, he deserves a REMATCH, not an extended series with losses on his record.
|
Im really confused why everyone is so chaffed about this. i think people forget that MLG is a brand that is trying to grow and to do that you need faces that people can recognize. Provideing themselves with a top 16 seeds gives them the power to market these players and build rivalries. I can understand some distress over the extended series, thats to be warrented, but it also provides some excitment. What could be better then seeing Jinro up 2-0 from an inital best of 3 against IdrA, only to have Idra come back and sweep Jinro in the finals? It builds excitment and backround stories. They've created a viewing experience with high quality games over several days and im personally excited.
|
I think people have also over looked this recent annoucnement http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/news/img-and-mlg-form-global-strategic-partnership. its likely we may see euro tournys in the near future
You have to look at this company and realize its has sponsers from brands such as hotpockets and Dr.pepper, you just dont see shit like that at gaming tournaments, hell they managed to put halo players on goddamn dr.pepper bottles. there trying to build a brand with recongizeable faces. Without Seeds, and the vast amount of players in sc2, its possible youd be seeing new faces in the finals every single event. although this isnt necessarily be a bad thing, it creates a much harder enviroment for MLG to create a recognizable brand and player basis
|
On February 27 2011 23:21 Luiwtf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 05:05 Corrik wrote:
Also, I don't get the hate on extended series. This is an event played over a course of a weekend. The only real difference between an extended series and one that isn't is that you could possibly see more games between the two competitors and that the person who lost before has to win more. The thing that you're missing is that both players have already lost. Show nested quote +The reasoning is that if you have say (this is only an example) Idra play Huk. Let's say Idra wins 2-0.
Idra goes on in the Winner's Bracket and Huk drops down into the Loser Bracket. Idra then loses to say Jinro and drops down into the Loser Bracket also. Huk wins out to face Idra in the Loser Bracket.
If Huk wins 2-1, he would advance though he technically lost more games to Idra than he won.
In a tournament with a loser's bracket, you want to ensure the best player/team advances. Thus, this is why extended series is used. I would think most tournaments with a loser's bracket played over a weekend would use an extended series.
All it means is that the series would have started 2-0 for Idra. Idra would have to win 2 games while Huk would have to win 4. The reason Huk is in the hole is his own doing for losing the first games. And, this means more games to be viewed if Huk wins the series. So you think it's fair that while Huk is penalised because he lost against IdrA previously (in what is essentially a completely different match), IdrA is given an advantage because he lost to someone else, who he may never actually have to face again in the tournament? They're both in the losers bracket, which means both players have lost a game, therefore they should both be equal, previous results shouldn't matter in the tournament (other than the grand final, since one player hasn't actually lost at all). Show nested quote +This makes every game mean a lot more to the competitor. Sure, Idra might prefer the first and third map so he could just basically cede the 2nd game to the opponent and win 2-1 to advance. But, with extended series, it would make that decision stupid as he might play that opponent later and he is giving him a free win.
It's a good rule, in my opinion. It's a terrible rule, imo.
I mean we could argue this all day, but I did not overlook what you said I did in your post. I am fully aware how the Loser's Bracket works. However, it is not penalizing you for being in the Loser's Bracket. It is only penalizing you if you meet the same opponent you lost to earlier on in the tournament.
The point of an elimination tournament is for the best player to advance. If you are down 3-2 against someone, you should not advance over them. Just like if it is 3-3 against someone you should not advance over them. They want the best player to move on.
This tournament is played over a weekend and basically is a continuous event. It's not like someone has month's to analyze play and adapt new strategies. For the most part, they can't even spend time going over it due to playing constantly. The person who won earlier deserves that advantage. They already defeated this opponent.
As having been to MLG events in the past, I tell you this rule can only help the spectator. It makes every game worth more in every part of the tournament and can create more games for the spectator to view. Some of my favorite games in Halo 2 have been in extended series finals where the Loser Bracket team came back to beat the team who beat them earlier in max games.
I think everyone should focus their complaining on the Bo3 finals to hopefully get that changed than the extended series. You are comparing this tournament to other tournaments where an extended series would not be practical to justify your complaints on it. = /
|
Finals better NOT be BO3, BO5 please.
|
If the finals end up being a Bo3, it'll be a disaster...But it probably won't, someone will explain to them how absurd that is. The format is good in my opinion, but keeping the extended series rule is a mistake. Looks good overall as long as finals (maybe semis as well) become Bo5 or Bo7.
|
8748 Posts
Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round.
A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him!
So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL.
|
It ticks me off to no end that there are people that dont get what a nonsense the extended series is. Not because I think it breaks the game or something, but because i simply can not stand things that are completely illogical.
How can some here not see that you get penalized twice for loosing if you meet the same player you lost against again by chance? Why does it even need an example to illustrate this? Its blatantly obvious.
Also, I think its very sad that MLG will be a semi-closed competition now with the huge advantages for the top16. I guess some need this "known characters,rivalries, drama" stuff, but I just want to see good games. The system may work with Halo, as the top16 here may be close to being the best players, and its possible to build a hype around them. But in sc2, where you just know that these are not the real top16, I dont see how this can work the same way.
|
The argument for it is that if one player wins 2-0 the first time but loses 2-1 the second time he's actually won 4 maps but only lost 3 against that player, so it's, in some sense, unfair that he gets eliminated.
I don't agree with it, but that's the argument.
|
On February 28 2011 09:28 hugman wrote:
The argument for it is that if one player wins 2-0 the first time but loses 2-1 the second time he's actually won 4 maps but only lost 3 against that player, so it's, in some sense, unfair that he gets eliminated.
I don't agree with it, but that's the argument.
And if its the other way around and the player wins 2-1 the first time but loses 2-0 the second time, he is still not out with the extended series rule, although he is 2-3 behind against that player. Yep, that argument makes sense, lol.
|
I play a lot of Halo, and the reason extended series is so well like for halo is that there are 11 Map-gametypes combos (Capture the flag on Countdown is an example). If two teams meet up again, the extended series makes it so they don't play on the maps that they have already played on. The extended series means that they run through all 11 map-gametypes and the better team will move on. It is very possible for a team to lose 3-0 because they got all of their worst maps and come back 6-5 in the extended series because they are better at all 11 map-gametypes overall.
Now, assuming SC2's map pool is great, the extended series should show who is the better player at most of the maps overall.
|
This is going to be so intense.
|
On February 28 2011 09:28 hugman wrote:
The argument for it is that if one player wins 2-0 the first time but loses 2-1 the second time he's actually won 4 maps but only lost 3 against that player, so it's, in some sense, unfair that he gets eliminated.
I don't agree with it, but that's the argument.
This argument never gives the whole story. The player who won the first time had to lose to SOMEONE ELSE; the other player didn't.
|
On February 28 2011 09:28 hugman wrote:
The argument for it is that if one player wins 2-0 the first time but loses 2-1 the second time he's actually won 4 maps but only lost 3 against that player, so it's, in some sense, unfair that he gets eliminated.
I don't agree with it, but that's the argument.
But they are two completely different games, being played at different times in the tournament at different points in the bracket! It's completely preposterous to try and link those games.
The better player will win the second Bo3. That's it.
Just imagine two teams playing group stage at the World Cup, then meeting again later in the finals and one team would be up 1-0 at the start of the finals. You do not take your wins/losses against a player with you in a tournament and play again under these circumstances. That's just absolutely preposterous to me.
|
On February 28 2011 16:41 Bobster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 09:28 hugman wrote:
The argument for it is that if one player wins 2-0 the first time but loses 2-1 the second time he's actually won 4 maps but only lost 3 against that player, so it's, in some sense, unfair that he gets eliminated.
I don't agree with it, but that's the argument. But they are two completely different games, being played at different times in the tournament at different points in the bracket! It's completely preposterous to try and link those games. The better player will win the second Bo3. That's it. Just imagine two teams playing group stage at the World Cup, then meeting again later in the finals and one team would be up 1-0 at the start of the finals. You do not take your wins/losses against a player with you in a tournament and play again under these circumstances. That's just absolutely preposterous to me.
Again.
People are arguing apples and oranges. The World Cup does not even have the same format as MLG. There is no comparison to be made.
If you wanted to make one, the closest you could get is the World Cup and the Championship Bracket. Pool Play and then the bracket (which is still pretty far off). The Pool Play matches do not extend to the bracket. So, again, you did nothing but add a comparison that made no sense.
Those arguing the player already lost to someone else to go down into the Loser's Bracket are forgetting that the person went further in the Winner's Bracket and in theory played a better person.
I understand things that are different make people angry, but think about it for awhile because the arguments being made in this topic really aren't making sense, to be honest.
|
17. NS.Nadagast (T) - 965
Fixed. Nadagast doesn't have any offical affiliation with LG. He is sponsored by Nerdstomper.
Looking forward to the up and coming MLG. I wonder how the larger stage will play into people that attend for each game, and how the format will fair for both games. (Also, if halo and sc2 use this, what format is black ops using?)
|
On February 28 2011 09:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL.
In your example Blue was not the sole factor in the eliminatation of Green. It was the combined efforts of Blue and whoever Green lost to in the winners bracket. Thats why its flawed to look at it just as one big game between 2 players.
I think of it like this:
Winning 2x Bo3 is winning 4 games out of 6 chances.
Winning one Bo7 is winning 4 games out of 7 chances.
It give an extra chance for both players to mess up, which pairs of players in the same bracket (who arent subject to an extended series) do not get.
|
Sweden5554 Posts
The point structure can't be right for the earlier seasons, there were no games afaik to determine different placements for people for 17th to 24th and 25th to 32nd and in the earlier point tables I saw they were all given the same points.
Also IdrA has 1440 points according to the list in the OP and he got 1200 for first in DC and then he must have gotten 240 from the national championship in Dallas, but there's no placement that gives 240 unless it's the point for 17th to 24th all get 240.
|
Extended series is terrible.
|
I'm so sick of people complaining about extended series and then basically punctuating their complaint with "I don't even understand why it's in there"
If you don't understand WHY, your complaints probably aren't very valid, are they?
Worse though, are the people who dislike it simply to jump on the bandwagon. Have a damn opinion of your own sometime guys. It's not so bad. I've yet to see one person who dislikes it give a succinct reason as to why. The best arguments came from Inc and Idra and even those were pretty damn shallow.
|
279 Posts
Before I dive in, Motbob has made a great post on the way the new format works here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=196798. I have a few minor corrections/clarifications/responses.
- While technically true that someone who drops from the first round open winners to losers would play 21 bo3's if they were to WIN the tournament, this is an absolute worst case scenario. The reality is that we're much more likely to see, at most, 13 to 14 bo3's spread over 3 days (and with 2 of those matches being consolation matches) from folks that make it out of the Open. By comparison, Teams that start in the Championship Bracket and take 1st place would play between 7 and 14 bo3's.
- Many folks have made this point, but I'll re-iterate it. MLG tournaments are, to some extent, an endurance run—or as we like to think of it, consistent winning performance. Because we want as many people to join the tournament as possible (and not just the top 16-32 players), we have large brackets. By definition, this means many more matches. And our tournament happens in 2.25 days of competition (friday is a 1/2 day, saturday is all day and sunday is 3/4 of a day). That's a very short timeframe for so many matches. That’s the type of events we’ve always run, and I will absolutely grant that its very different than an Online competition (although I’m sure that many people play 20 or 30 maps over the course of the weekend) or other tournaments. The expansion of the Championship Bracket to SC2 is, in part, a response to the concerns of the top pro’s from 2010 on how many matches they have to play.
- One aspect of the Championship Bracket that has not been mentioned, however, is that the “protection” also works in reverse. Open players are less likely to get paired up against a top pro in Winners 1 (and even 2), especially with a bracket as big as ours. That means more matches that an open bracket player gets to play—and a better tournament experience for them.
- I want to also point out that John Nelson (MLG Anakin, the MLG League Commissioner) specifically designed Pool Play so that there would be more interesting matches for you guys to watch all weekend. As much as I like a good trouncing, watching Jinro, Idra or other top players trounce an Open player isn’t all that interesting to broadcast or spectate.
- On the subject of the finals—I’ve seen a lot of requests for bo5 or bo7 finals--obviously I don’t want an anticlimactic finals, but asking players who have just pounded their way through 10 or more bo3’s over the course of a weekend to play “just two more maps” at the finals is brutal. That’s no longer an endurance test, that’s just cruel and unusual.
- Regarding extended series (I don't think I've ever posted about it, so here goes), this represents a core philosophy of MLG’s league. A tournament should have a memory of your entire performance in that tournament, not just how you’re doing in that round/match. Fundamentally, that means that if you beat me in an earlier round, I should have to work really hard to knock you out of the tournament if we meet up again later. Think about it from this perspective, Extended Series basically says that if we play each other, the total number of rounds won should determine the winner, not just where we meet in the bracket.
Thanks, as always, for all the feedback.
Lee
|
United States7481 Posts
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
|
8748 Posts
On February 28 2011 18:30 Huxley wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 09:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL. In your example Blue was not the sole factor in the eliminatation of Green. It was the combined efforts of Blue and whoever Green lost to in the winners bracket. Thats why its flawed to look at it just as one big game between 2 players. I think of it like this: Winning 2x Bo3 is winning 4 games out of 6 chances. Winning one Bo7 is winning 4 games out of 7 chances. It give an extra chance for both players to mess up, which pairs of players in the same bracket (who arent subject to an extended series) do not get.
You've got to explain why it's a flaw. You're not making any arguments here. You're just posting how the rules play out and saying "it shouldn't be like that". You haven't gotten any farther than saying "I'm against extended series" and then running a bunch of scenarios where extended series are involved and saying "yep that shit is flawed".
For example: I think playing bo5's in a bracket is flawed. A guy can go 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 and play against a guy who has gone 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 and then lose 2-3, and this guy who wins 85% of his games does not advance while the guy who wins 60% of his games does get to advance. We should fix this by having bo1's, not bo5's, so that the guy with the higher win percentage always advances. We had a flaw and now we don't so obviously running bo1's in a bracket is better than bo5's.
There are flaws in every system. Patching up a flaw doesn't necessarily improve the system. That's why MLG always talks about their philosophy of running leagues, their belief that the tournament should have a memory, etc. That's where the argument is at. You posting your scenarios are way behind. Like I said, it's an impasse. Majority of SC fans don't like extended series because they don't understand the issue so they have no chance to make a decision, and being against extended series is their default position.
|
279 Posts
On March 01 2011 04:00 Antoine wrote:
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series.
|
I understand that MLG has this core philosophy thing going on with the extended series. However as a spectator it creates anti-climatic matches. Extended series in SC2 gives the previous winner a huge advantage because unlike Halo, even the best player in the world loses 40% of the time to their peers.
There was a study done in SC1 that said something along the lines of 90% of all BO3 are won by the person who wins the first game. Extended series is even worse because it gives one player a 2-0 or 2-1 advantage. Its not very exciting to watch a match when the odds are so heavily stacked against one player because of some philosophical principle.
I think back to MLG Raleigh and that was the most anticlimatic final ever. Select was exhausted by running through the losers bracket all tournament long, and when he finally got to the finals, not only did he face the daunting task of needing to win 2 series to Idra's 1, one of them was a BO7 extended series where I believe he started off with a 0-2 disadvantage. I didnt even bother watching it because the odds were so heavily stacked against him. It doesnt need to be that way just because of some philosophy.
|
United States7481 Posts
On March 01 2011 04:29 MLG_Lee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:00 Antoine wrote:
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series.
That's exactly my question: why isn't it extended if the lower bracket wins the first bo3, so as to be consistent with the rest of the tournament?
|
On March 01 2011 04:39 kNightLite wrote:
I understand that MLG has this core philosophy thing going on with the extended series. However as a spectator it creates anti-climatic matches. Extended series in SC2 gives the previous winner a huge advantage because unlike Halo, even the best player in the world loses 40% of the time to their peers.
There was a study done in SC1 that said something along the lines of 90% of all BO3 are won by the person who wins the first match. Extended series is even worse because it gives one player a 2-0 or 2-1 advantage. Its not very exciting to watch a match when the odds are so heavily stacked against one player because of some philosophical principle.
I think back to MLG Raleigh and that was the most anticlimatic final ever. Select was exhausted by running through the losers bracket all tournament long, and when he finally got to the finals, not only did he face the daunting task of needing to win 2 series to Idra's 1, one of them was a BO7 extended series where I believe he started off with a 0-2 disadvantage. I didnt even bother watching it because the odds were so heavily stacked against him. It doesnt need to be that way just because of some philosophy.
Select and Idra happened in D.C.
|
On March 01 2011 04:44 Antoine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:29 MLG_Lee wrote:On March 01 2011 04:00 Antoine wrote:
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series. That's exactly my question: why isn't it extended if the lower bracket wins the first bo3, so as to be consistent with the rest of the tournament?
Yeah, I was wondering on this issue, too. If the lower bracket player knocks off the upper bracket player in the finals, shouldn't the second set of games be an extended series in favor of the lower bracket player?
If this isn't the case, then the whole memory core principle would be inconsistently applied.
|
279 Posts
On March 01 2011 04:51 ptbl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:44 Antoine wrote:On March 01 2011 04:29 MLG_Lee wrote:On March 01 2011 04:00 Antoine wrote:
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series. That's exactly my question: why isn't it extended if the lower bracket wins the first bo3, so as to be consistent with the rest of the tournament? Yeah, I was wondering on this issue, too. If the lower bracket player knocks off the upper bracket player in the finals, shouldn't the second set of games be an extended series in favor of the lower bracket player? If this isn't the case, then the whole memory core principle would be inconsistently applied.
NB: "Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series. "
Some rules/settings still to come this week (like maplist!!!!!). Should have highlighted that in my original response.
edit: hit post too fast and didn't finish my thought.
|
Sweden5554 Posts
Hmm I only have one question about the format. And that's how players from pool play get seeded into the loser's bracket of the championship bracket.
The way it looks from the previews it looks like in any "group" or section of the bracket there's only players from two different pool groups (it looked like this in the OP picture A5 B4 A3 B2) shouldn't they instead get one player in from a different group for every round so: Player A5 then B4 then C3 and then D2. Because as presented wouldn't that increase the risk of players having already played each other playing again, extended series or no, having the competitors play as many different players as possible within the format is the best way to decide who's better than who no?
|
Kind of a specific question that you might not have an answer for yet. In motbob's picture of the MLG format, it shows the 2nd-5th place players from pool play being placed in the same part of the loser's bracket as the other members from their pool. Is this how it is going to be? Or will it be separated out so players can play players from other pools as the go through the bracket?
Not sure if this has been answered, but will it be an extended series if two players played each other in pool play and meet again in the loser's bracket?
|
MLG doesn't care about fariness, they care about entertainment. Based off what I've seen in Halo, the extended series adds a whole new level of excitement to the tournament. It stages a possible nail biting comeback while maintaining who is the better player. If you can't beat someone in an extended series, you don't deserve to advance.
|
MLG_Lee
Can you explain to me how you guys decided to guarantee the Top 16 seeds a Top 24 Finish(Out of 272 Participants) just for showing up? The 1st seed could play the worse games of his life and still place Top 24th and gain points to be seeded in the next tournament. They can't even place last in a bracket that was specifically made for them. It just seems incredibly broken from an integrity point of view.
Tournaments giving advantages through seeding or even skipping the first couple of rounds is no mystery. Guaranteeing a minimum final ranking(from this many participants) as far as I'm aware of has NEVER been done.
|
MLG is trying to produce "star players" through their seeding. For Halo they've created upper echelon teams to give their sponsors something more tangible to sink their money into. Starcraft is a game very similar to poker. The better player/better hand won't always win when the river card hits. This means that in a pool of so many players, we will see new names in the top 16 every tournament. That is great for the competitive aspect, but bad for business. Doyle Brunson might not be the best poker player in the world, but he is a household name that has been used to progress poker. MLG is using this kind of logic and applying it to esports. In the end, it's all about the money. If a player is truly good enough, he will rise to the top despite the odds stacked against him.
|
On March 01 2011 05:50 Karnage7 wrote:
MLG is trying to produce "star players" through their seeding. For Halo they've created upper echelon teams to give their sponsors something more tangible to sink their money into. Starcraft is a game very similar to poker. The better player/better hand won't always win when the river card hits. This means that in a pool of so many players, we will see new names in the top 16 every tournament. That is great for the competitive aspect, but bad for business. Doyle Brunson might not be the best poker player in the world, but he is a household name that has been used to progress poker. MLG is using this kind of logic and applying it to esports. In the end, it's all about the money. If a player is truly good enough, he will rise to the top despite the odds stacked against him.
That's sad to hear. I expected something like this but, later in SC2's life when actual consistency would have been established. Seeing this so soon and seeing money/marketing already affecting the integrity of the competition just as it's "taking off" is a major turn off. Once the hooks are in, they're in for good.
|
On March 01 2011 03:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
- I want to also point out that John Nelson (MLG Anakin, the MLG League Commissioner) specifically designed Pool Play so that there would be more interesting matches for you guys to watch all weekend. As much as I like a good trouncing, watching Jinro, Idra or other top players trounce an Open player isn’t all that interesting to broadcast or spectate.
This is actually the best argument for MLGs group system I have seen so far. We can see high profile matches from day 1 which is indeed a big plus.
Still the system is somewhat too closed, the advantages for the top 16 are too big.
Because of that star players that are not in the top16 are much less likely to attend the event, which makes it less attractive for the viewers (especially the european ones).
Also when the qualification for this tournament (the last 3 MLGs) was done, noone knew that these points would be that important. Therefore it was somewhat random who attended the event and qualified for the top16. Just imagine how much less attractive the top16 would have been if team liquid had not decided to come for that one MLG where many qualified.
Other top players from europe would have come and qualified as well, if they had known what these points would actually mean later on.
Imo at least 3 qualification tournaments with the old system should be done now AFTER having announced the exact format.
On March 01 2011 03:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
- On the subject of the finals—I’ve seen a lot of requests for bo5 or bo7 finals--obviously I don’t want an anticlimactic finals, but asking players who have just pounded their way through 10 or more bo3’s over the course of a weekend to play “just two more maps” at the finals is brutal. That’s no longer an endurance test, that’s just cruel and unusual.
Sorry but I dont see how this makes sense. You dont even know how many games the respective players have played at this point. Could be 20, could be 30. 20+2 or 30+2 is cruel and unusual while 20 or maybe 30 or whatever is perfectly ok? 2 more games should not make that much of a difference, especially when these games decide about something like 10.000 $.
If you truly felt that 2 more games are such a big deal you would not use a format where the winner plays something between 14 and 63 games.
Also a bo5 in a final is anything but unusual lol. What is unusual is having matches with the same amount of games in the final as you have in the first ound. Its actually so unusual that MLG is the only tournament I know of that does it.
|
On March 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Majority of SC fans don't like extended series because they don't understand the issue so they have no chance to make a decision, and being against extended series is their default position.
Nice, everybody that doesnt support the extended series simply has no clue. Even better, everybody who is against it has in truth not REALLY decided against it, as he is just not informed. Nice try at disregarding people whose opinion differs from yours.
Many people so far have explained why they dont like the extended series. Partly with lengthy posts. And most of them have indeed given me the impression that they actually understand the rule.
But I will give it one last try.
In my view the extended series is unfair because it penalizes the player that loses a match twice for that. First he (player A) gets knocked down to the losers bracket. He has to play and win more games in the loser bracket than the player (player B) he lost against. When player B loses a match too and happens to meet A in the loser bracket he will have an advantage over player A, although he has lost the same amount of matches and even won less matches. Player A has received a second penalty for losing, as he is behind in the series.
The funny thing is, if player A does by chance not meet player B again in the loser bracket because B got knocked out by someone else, A will not receive the second penalty for losing that one match. He will play the usual bo3s. He simply has to hope, that B loses and he does not meet him again. That adds a random element to the whole thing that simply should not be there.
Yes, there is a reason that noone else uses an extended series.
But I guess my opinion is also invalid because I am just not informed. 
|
On March 01 2011 04:29 MLG_Lee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:00 Antoine wrote:
Hey Lee,
I actually really like the new format as a spectator, and my only initial concern was the length of the finals. Then I talked to you on twitter and realized that it's not really a good idea to have a longer finals. My only remaining question is still about the finals. This is assuming the 2 players meeting in the finals haven't faced each other previously in the finals, so it's not an automatic extended series.
It seems to me that in order to be consistent with the rest of the tournament, it should be a single bo3 if the person coming from the winner's bracket is ahead at that point, or an extended bo7 if the person coming from the loser's bracket wins 2 of the first 3 games. This prevents any situations like an 0-2 2-1 win ( so 2-3 total) from the winner's bracket person, and makes it so the grand finals has the same rules as the rest of the tournament. Why is this not the case?
Thanks Antoine. In the finals, if they haven't met before it's a bo3 and if the lower bracket wins the first one, then a second bo3 is played which is not currently an extended series.
It's a little weird that extended series can "backfire" in the finals. If you've played a player that you beat 2-1, you get an extended series and they only need to win 3 games against you. If you play a player you haven't played before they have to beat you in 2 Bo3 matches for 4 total games. Seems to me like the winners bracket winner should always get the benefit of having to get beaten in two Bo3's, but it's not a huge deal.
If I were to make a suggestion to make it even better, I would suggest that the player in the winners bracket should never be hurt under extended series rules and the finals should always be Bo7 with the winner's bracket winner starting 2-0 for consistency.
|
On March 01 2011 04:47 ptbl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:39 kNightLite wrote:
I understand that MLG has this core philosophy thing going on with the extended series. However as a spectator it creates anti-climatic matches. Extended series in SC2 gives the previous winner a huge advantage because unlike Halo, even the best player in the world loses 40% of the time to their peers.
There was a study done in SC1 that said something along the lines of 90% of all BO3 are won by the person who wins the first match. Extended series is even worse because it gives one player a 2-0 or 2-1 advantage. Its not very exciting to watch a match when the odds are so heavily stacked against one player because of some philosophical principle.
I think back to MLG Raleigh and that was the most anticlimatic final ever. Select was exhausted by running through the losers bracket all tournament long, and when he finally got to the finals, not only did he face the daunting task of needing to win 2 series to Idra's 1, one of them was a BO7 extended series where I believe he started off with a 0-2 disadvantage. I didnt even bother watching it because the odds were so heavily stacked against him. It doesnt need to be that way just because of some philosophy. Select and Idra happened in D.C.
"There was a study done in SC1 that said something along the lines of 90% of all BO3 are won by the person who wins the first match."
Okay so where be the study that shows that the better player wins most of the matches against the lesser player LOLOLOL.
Yeah, we actually have to think about the stats we put down, not just do it because it suits our argument
|
Not sure whether this warrants a thread of its own or can be dumped in here but the new map pool was announced for MLG.
http://www.majorleaguegaming.com/mlg/mlg-starcraft-2-map-pool/
I'm suprised they have Crossfire, and as an observer I'm little disappointed we'll never be seeing Desert Oasis or Kulas Ravine again in a tournament (despite them being horribly imbalanced, I suppose Day[9]'s and DJWheat's showmatch and IdrA getting blunk was a worthy send off though).
I do think all revisions of Shakuras and Metalopolis should be using the MLG version of:
"Starting spawns on Metalopolis and Shattered Temple have been modified to prevent close ground spawns.
Starting spawns on Shakuras Plateau have been modified to ensure cross-map spawns only."
:Edit: Does the low ground block also prevent low ground wall-ins such as Barracks/Supply depot? But as a whole I believe again having an anti-pylon/bunker block is another beneficial feature that should be made default in order to promote lengthier games.
Yet with all these big maps, map features to lengthen matches and perhaps uncertainty and unfamiliarity with the maps, will the MLG be running for longer than it currently has been since it will be less likely to have as many rush games.
|
I agree on the no close positions on ST and Metal, but I also think preventing horizontal spawn on Shakuras is a bit of an overkill.
Also kinda sad that Scrap Station is still in it and Tal'darim Altar or Taminus RE are not, but I understand it since they prob wanted to keep as many ladder maps (ladder practice) and still take few community (GSL + ICCup) and one fan favorite (Shakuras).
|
I think MLG did a good job in picking the maps for their tournaments.
|
Australia8532 Posts
If Slasher is around maybe he can chuck a link to motbob's thread in the OP .. was very helpful
|
It's a little weird that extended series can "backfire" in the finals. If you've played a player that you beat 2-1, you get an extended series and they only need to win 3 games against you. If you play a player you haven't played before they have to beat you in 2 Bo3 matches for 4 total games. Seems to me like the winners bracket winner should always get the benefit of having to get beaten in two Bo3's, but it's not a huge deal.
Personally I think extended series is a stupid artificial construct but the argument you gave is bad. They have to win only 3 instead of 4 and you have to win only 2 instead of 4. If you won 1 game each in 2 bo3s you would lose without extended series so that works both ways. How can you possibly say that is a backfire? That said there is a reason that in established sports they do not give a team some advantage for beating another one earlier in a season; each match is an individual event and should be treated as such.
Also concerning the seeding I think they should place more value on the winner. Idra not being a 1-4 seed is pretty stupid considering he won an MLG. The point value should increase more highly than it does between the positions then it does right now, I have nothing personally against the guy and enjoy his streaming but Incontrol has not had any good showings at a MLG event and is still rated in the top 16 just from placing mediocre in most of them just to give an example.
|
On March 01 2011 07:15 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Majority of SC fans don't like extended series because they don't understand the issue so they have no chance to make a decision, and being against extended series is their default position. Nice, everybody that doesnt support the extended series simply has no clue. Even better, everybody who is against it has in truth not REALLY decided against it, as he is just not informed. Nice try at disregarding people whose opinion differs from yours. Many people so far have explained why they dont like the extended series. Partly with lengthy posts. And most of them have indeed given me the impression that they actually understand the rule. But I will give it one last try. In my view the extended series is unfair because it penalizes the player that loses a match twice for that. First he (player A) gets knocked down to the losers bracket. He has to play and win more games in the loser bracket than the player (player B) he lost against. When player B loses a match too and happens to meet A in the loser bracket he will have an advantage over player A, although he has lost the same amount of matches and even won less matches. Player A has received a second penalty for losing, as he is behind in the series. The funny thing is, if player A does by chance not meet player B again in the loser bracket because B got knocked out by someone else, A will not receive the second penalty for losing that one match. He will play the usual bo3s. He simply has to hope, that B loses and he does not meet him again. That adds a random element to the whole thing that simply should not be there. Yes, there is a reason that noone else uses an extended series. But I guess my opinion is also invalid because I am just not informed.
I know youre German and maybe you misunderstand English but man, majority does not equal everybody.
|
I think it's important to note that there are seven maps. MLG sets up all their games so that a full extended series runs through all of the maps. That way, your win is less dependent on getting maps that favor you and more dependent on being good at every map in the map pool.
|
I doubt everyone in the top 16 will show up. Some people will end up moving up. Didn't Jinro say he has no plans to play in any tournaments outside of Korea?
|
On March 01 2011 12:32 Corrik wrote:
I doubt everyone in the top 16 will show up. Some people will end up moving up. Didn't Jinro say he has no plans to play in any tournaments outside of Korea?
He said he wont go to any tournament that interferes with GSL. Hopefully they'll help him out with scheduling so he can play MLG as often as possible.
|
On March 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 18:30 Huxley wrote:On February 28 2011 09:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL. In your example Blue was not the sole factor in the eliminatation of Green. It was the combined efforts of Blue and whoever Green lost to in the winners bracket. Thats why its flawed to look at it just as one big game between 2 players. I think of it like this: Winning 2x Bo3 is winning 4 games out of 6 chances. Winning one Bo7 is winning 4 games out of 7 chances. It give an extra chance for both players to mess up, which pairs of players in the same bracket (who arent subject to an extended series) do not get. You've got to explain why it's a flaw. You're not making any arguments here. You're just posting how the rules play out and saying "it shouldn't be like that". You haven't gotten any farther than saying "I'm against extended series" and then running a bunch of scenarios where extended series are involved and saying "yep that shit is flawed". For example: I think playing bo5's in a bracket is flawed. A guy can go 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 and play against a guy who has gone 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 and then lose 2-3, and this guy who wins 85% of his games does not advance while the guy who wins 60% of his games does get to advance. We should fix this by having bo1's, not bo5's, so that the guy with the higher win percentage always advances. We had a flaw and now we don't so obviously running bo1's in a bracket is better than bo5's. There are flaws in every system. Patching up a flaw doesn't necessarily improve the system. That's why MLG always talks about their philosophy of running leagues, their belief that the tournament should have a memory, etc. That's where the argument is at. You posting your scenarios are way behind. Like I said, it's an impasse. Majority of SC fans don't like extended series because they don't understand the issue so they have no chance to make a decision, and being against extended series is their default position.
HusbandToss, you should be a lawyer.
|
8748 Posts
On March 01 2011 15:25 CatZ.root wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On February 28 2011 18:30 Huxley wrote:On February 28 2011 09:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL. In your example Blue was not the sole factor in the eliminatation of Green. It was the combined efforts of Blue and whoever Green lost to in the winners bracket. Thats why its flawed to look at it just as one big game between 2 players. I think of it like this: Winning 2x Bo3 is winning 4 games out of 6 chances. Winning one Bo7 is winning 4 games out of 7 chances. It give an extra chance for both players to mess up, which pairs of players in the same bracket (who arent subject to an extended series) do not get. You've got to explain why it's a flaw. You're not making any arguments here. You're just posting how the rules play out and saying "it shouldn't be like that". You haven't gotten any farther than saying "I'm against extended series" and then running a bunch of scenarios where extended series are involved and saying "yep that shit is flawed". For example: I think playing bo5's in a bracket is flawed. A guy can go 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 and play against a guy who has gone 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 and then lose 2-3, and this guy who wins 85% of his games does not advance while the guy who wins 60% of his games does get to advance. We should fix this by having bo1's, not bo5's, so that the guy with the higher win percentage always advances. We had a flaw and now we don't so obviously running bo1's in a bracket is better than bo5's. There are flaws in every system. Patching up a flaw doesn't necessarily improve the system. That's why MLG always talks about their philosophy of running leagues, their belief that the tournament should have a memory, etc. That's where the argument is at. You posting your scenarios are way behind. Like I said, it's an impasse. Majority of SC fans don't like extended series because they don't understand the issue so they have no chance to make a decision, and being against extended series is their default position. HusbandToss, you should be a lawyer.
lol i was gonna be until i decided to be a progamer!
<3
|
On March 01 2011 04:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 18:30 Huxley wrote:On February 28 2011 09:04 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Where's the flaw? You've made part 1 of your argument and haven't bothered to make part 2. The folks who have made part 2 of the argument end up at an impasse with the folks in favor of extended series. Either you think the bracket should be read as a whole or you think the slate should be wiped clean every round. A flaw of not having extended series is when Green beats Blue 2-0, and then they meet in the losers bracket and Blue beats Green 2-1, and now Green has been eliminated by someone he's 3-2 against in this competition. If they would've just played a bo5 in the first place, he would've won 3-0 or 3-1. But since they're playing two bo3's, and Blue is lucky enough to win 2/3 of games 3-5, Blue gets to advance. Since you like percentages, Blue has just eliminated Green by winning only 40% of his games against him! So double elim with extended series is saying "either you have to lose twice in bo3's, which can be kinda luck based so that's why we give you a 2nd chance, or you have to lose once in a bo5, which ought to determine fairly well that you're worse than someone else here". But there are several other perspectives to consider as well... it's all been said before on TL. In your example Blue was not the sole factor in the eliminatation of Green. It was the combined efforts of Blue and whoever Green lost to in the winners bracket. Thats why its flawed to look at it just as one big game between 2 players. I think of it like this: Winning 2x Bo3 is winning 4 games out of 6 chances. Winning one Bo7 is winning 4 games out of 7 chances. It give an extra chance for both players to mess up, which pairs of players in the same bracket (who arent subject to an extended series) do not get. You've got to explain why it's a flaw. You're not making any arguments here. You're just posting how the rules play out and saying "it shouldn't be like that". You haven't gotten any farther than saying "I'm against extended series" and then running a bunch of scenarios where extended series are involved and saying "yep that shit is flawed"..
I did in the first line of the doc linked in my original post:
"Players subjected to the extended series rule always have different probabilities to advance compared to players of equal standing that were not subject to it."
By equal standings i mean (using the example in the doc) red compared with blue or green compared to purple. Those players are performing equally to one another yet because the extended series rule only applies to one of them (due to happenstance) you end up with one of them having a greater chance to advance based on probability (ie remove skill from the equation).
For example: I think playing bo5's in a bracket is flawed. A guy can go 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 3-0 and play against a guy who has gone 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-2 and then lose 2-3, and this guy who wins 85% of his games does not advance while the guy who wins 60% of his games does get to advance. We should fix this by having bo1's, not bo5's, so that the guy with the higher win percentage always advances. We had a flaw and now we don't so obviously running bo1's in a bracket is better than bo5's.
In this example, if you wanted to design a system based on cumulative win percentage then you would allow the loser of the 3-0 to play out the 4th and 5th games. Then the "total games played" would be equal for everyone and the percentages would then be a fair comparison. Anyway, Im using percentages to show how the probabilities of advancing get skewed, not as arbitrary scoring system.
There are flaws in every system. Patching up a flaw doesn't necessarily improve the system.
This actually sounds like an arguement you could use against extended series. It attempts to correct a perceived problem with the double elimination format but ends up creating another set of problems in its place.
|
Extended series is a problem how? Bo3 is 3 games total. Extended it's bo7. You still have to lose 4 games. Instead of 6 games we get a possible 7. Winner of the first series gets an advantage b/c he bossed that round. In Halo a series went from bo5 to bo11 to ensure equal losses.
Epic comeback for the person down a game or 2 is achieveable. If you lose you aren't worthy of advancing. What's the problem?
|
Can't wait for it! Gonna be awesome!
|
MLG wants to make games as exciting for the general public and casual gamers as possible. Extended series give people the chance to come from behind and win in spectacular fashion. While this probably wont happen frequently, it will happen, and when it does it will be much more exciting. People love to root for the underdog even if they are not normally a fan. As people who want to advance e-sports as much as possible, we should all be in support of the extended series.
|
On March 01 2011 23:05 Karnage7 wrote:
Extended series is a problem how? Bo3 is 3 games total. Extended it's bo7. You still have to lose 4 games. Instead of 6 games we get a possible 7.
Yes, the games lost ends up being the same but the player who is playing from behind has to win more games than someone with an identical score but who was lucky enough to avoid their former opponent. In this example Blue has to win twice as many games as Red, despite performing equally to Red up until that point.
Winner of the first series gets an advantage b/c he bossed that round. In Halo a series went from bo5 to bo11 to ensure equal losses. Epic comeback for the person down a game or 2 is achieveable. If you lose you aren't worthy of advancing. What's the problem?
But someone who isn't as lucky to meet the person they beat earlier doesn't get any advantage for "bossing" the first round. Its the lack of consistency in how the rule is applied that is the problem, not the rule itself.
|
On March 01 2011 07:36 mprs wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:47 ptbl wrote:On March 01 2011 04:39 kNightLite wrote:
I understand that MLG has this core philosophy thing going on with the extended series. However as a spectator it creates anti-climatic matches. Extended series in SC2 gives the previous winner a huge advantage because unlike Halo, even the best player in the world loses 40% of the time to their peers.
There was a study done in SC1 that said something along the lines of 90% of all BO3 are won by the person who wins the first match. Extended series is even worse because it gives one player a 2-0 or 2-1 advantage. Its not very exciting to watch a match when the odds are so heavily stacked against one player because of some philosophical principle.
I think back to MLG Raleigh and that was the most anticlimatic final ever. Select was exhausted by running through the losers bracket all tournament long, and when he finally got to the finals, not only did he face the daunting task of needing to win 2 series to Idra's 1, one of them was a BO7 extended series where I believe he started off with a 0-2 disadvantage. I didnt even bother watching it because the odds were so heavily stacked against him. It doesnt need to be that way just because of some philosophy. Select and Idra happened in D.C. "There was a study done in SC1 that said something along the lines of 90% of all BO3 are won by the person who wins the first match." Okay so where be the study that shows that the better player wins most of the matches against the lesser player LOLOLOL. Yeah, we actually have to think about the stats we put down, not just do it because it suits our argument
Try comparing GSL1 to GSL5. Or even MLG DC to MLG Dallas. Then come back here and try to make your argument.
|
Hey thanks for this thread, it made things very clear. cheers!!
|
I see it as, it's a weekend tournament, you're probably going to meet the player that beat in the loser's bracket the same day that they beat you, less than a day's time is not enough to be elgible for a clean-slate, the losing player cannot go home and change absolutely everything about their play and come back with new and refined build orders, so we just have to assume that the player who won the first series was not a fluke!
|
On March 01 2011 03:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
- Regarding extended series (I don't think I've ever posted about it, so here goes), this represents a core philosophy of MLG’s league. A tournament should have a memory of your entire performance in that tournament, not just how you’re doing in that round/match.
I realise that this may count as bleating on about something that isn't really the main focus of this thread, and which many see as an annoying/contentious issue, but I want to air my views on the current extended series rule directly to you while we have you in this thread. It's also longer than I intended, but I wanted to make sure I was properly explaining my thoughts.
I want to start by saying that I definitely see merit in the tournament being structured so that you don't get knocked out by somebody who you have a winning record against. After reading what Liquid'Tyler had to say on the subject a couple of months ago in another thread, I can understand why it's a bad thing to have the order of your wins against somebody dictate who is eliminated. But what I want to show is that the extended series rule does not currently 'have a memory of your entire performance in that tournament'. Instead, it has a very selective memory of your performance in one specific previous round in that tournament, and that this selective memory can lead to outcomes that run contrary to the goal as you stated it.
Take this example
idrA* has won all his matches 2-0 up to the semi final of the winners' bracket. He then gets eliminated 1-2. iNcontroL, on the other hand, has won all his matches 2-1 up to the semi final of the winners' bracket, including a match against Machine (because y'know, it's MLG :p). He then gets eliminated 0-2.
I think everybody can look at this and say that idrA has performed better than iNcontroL up to that stage of the tournament - or if you're taking only winrate, he has at least performed equally well.
iNcontroL is then drawn against Machine, but idrA plays somebody new. iNcontroL has to lose 3 games to be eliminated, wheras idrA only has to lose 2. iNcontroL has an easier time qualifying for the next round, compared to idrA. iNcontroL is in an advantageous position compared to idrA. The extended series rule has 'remembered' his previous performance against Machine, but has 'forgotten' any other performances.
My criticism of the extended series rule is that it does not actually reward players equally for performing equally well throughout the entire tournament. Instead, a player can have an advantage over somebody who has arguably performed better during the tournament, simply due to the dumb luck of the draw.
I think a better solution would be to turn any game where somebody got further in the winners' bracket into a BO5, and give the player who got further a 1-0 headstart (so he needs to lose 3 games, but only win 2. That way, earlier performance in the tournament is genuinely being remembered, that performance is being applied equally to every player, and also no player can be eliminated by somebody who you have a winning record against.
The worst that could happen would be you are eliminated by somebody who you have drawn 3-3 against in actual games played (you win 2-0 in the winners' bracket, get a 1-0 headstart in the losers' bracket BO5, and you are then beaten 2-3), but I think that will be far outweighed by the number of times that your overall performance gives you an advantage you wouldn't otherwise have under the current rules.
As far as fairness goes, I think it would be better than the current extended series rule, but the main downside I can see is that it could be difficult to fit into the existing schedule. And even if it fits, it could make the endurance aspect of the game even more difficult, depending on how many 'extended' BO5s you have compared to the current BO3/BO7 mix.
* Is it right to capitalise player names like this when they start a new sentence?
|
279 Posts
@The Touch - I think the difference I would have with your perspective is that the tournament (which, to reinforce the point, is double elim) already accounts for your performance relative to other players. You've made it another round. Extended series addresses the defect that LiquidTyler illustrated so much better than I did my first time out on the topic--that your performance vs another player during the entire tournament should determine who advances (and thus the memory part).
In a standard double elim bracket, it's like a full reset when two players meet again in losers (or grand finals). That is not, in MLG (and my opinion) fair to the winner. Yes, it's harder on the player who lost the first time they met, but the point is, it should be.
|
On March 04 2011 05:51 MLG_Lee wrote:
In a standard double elim bracket, it's like a full reset when two players meet again in losers (or grand finals). That is not, in MLG (and my opinion) fair to the winner. Yes, it's harder on the player who lost the first time they met, but the point is, it should be.
And I'm not arguing against that. It's easy to see why a tournament would want to eliminate the possibility of players being eliminated by somebody who they have a winning record against. I completely agree that it's a worthy goal.
What I'm arguing is that if two players (Player A and Player B) have performed equally well in the tournament, I think they should face the same risk of being eliminated in future rounds (other than that associated with the varying quality of their opponents). Extended series, as currently implemented, gives rise to situations where Player A has a lower risk of being eliminated than Player B does, just because the luck of the draw pits Player A against somebody he has already beaten, and pits Player B against somebody new.
The tournament is thus not remembering or rewarding overall tournament performance equally. In combating one unfairness, it creates a new one. Of course, arguably giving people a headstart in an 'extended' BO5 does the same for those players who were eliminated earlier and have been fighting their way through the losers' bracket.
Regardless, it's a fairly small niggle. Certainly not something that would stop me buying the stream - MLG 2011 looks pretty awesome.
|
Nvm found another thread.
|
I'm interested to know how MLG will seed their next event, whether it is based solely on 2011 results, or both 2010/2011 results.
I did a small big of number crunching to get what both seedings would be....
+ Show Spoiler +1. root.KiWiKaKi (P) - 3445
2. Liquid`HuK (P) - 3325
3. d.SeleCT (T) - 3100
4. ROOT.drewbie (T) - 2385
5. FnaticTT1 (P) - 2360
6. Liquid`Tyler (P) - 2240
7. root.SLush (Z) - 2150
8. LG.PainUser (T) - 2110
9. EG.IdrA (Z) - 2040
10. Alternate.Socke (P) - 1925
11. Liquid`Jinro (T) - 1800
12. Liquid`TLO (R) - 1750
13. EG.iNcontroL (P) - 1720
14. root.qxc (T) - 1610
15. Liquid`Ret (Z) - 1430
16. EG.Machine (Z) - 1285
-------------
17. Naniwa (P) - 1200
18. LG.Agh (P) - 1170
19. d.SjoW (T) - 1100
20. LG.Nadagast (T) - 965
21. FnaticGretorp (T) - 860
22. ajtls (T) - 850
23. CauthonLuck (T) - 650
24. Masq (T) - 620
25. EG.LzGaMeR (T) - 620
26. LG.iNkA (T) - 565
27. avilo (T) - 560
28. FXOMoonan (T) - 550
29. Silver (T) - 310
30. LG.ReSpOnSe (P) - 290
31. Haypro (Z) - 250
32. FnaticFenix (T) - 240
(Just miss out Sheth, Mihai, Vibe)
1. Naniwa 1200
2. Kiwikaki 1000
3. SeleCT 900
4. Incontrol 800
5. TLO 700
6. Socke 650
7. IdrA 600
8. Moonan 550
9-12. HuK 490
9-12. Drewbie 460
9-12. Slush 430
9-12. Sjow 400
13-16. Tyler 340
13-16. Machine 310
13-16. Ret 280
13-16. Haypro 250
------------------
17-20. Sheth 210
17-20. Mihai 200
17-20. Vibe 190
17-20. Gretorp 180
20-24. Painuser 140
20-24. Agh 130
20-24. qxc 120
20-24. Optikzero 110
25-28. Thisisjimmy 90
25-28. Spades 80
25-28. dde 70
25-28. LZgamer 60
29-32. Kawaiirice 40
29-32. nkulunkulu 30
29-32. Hawk 20
29-32. Cocoa. 10 It should be noted that seeding off this years results will give last years results some benefit anyway due to the nature of the bracket, and therefore I think it is only fair to ignore last years results when doing seeding from now on (otherwise there is too much history to erase with players who have not kept up skill-wise). On the other hand, TT1 and Jinro deserve something for doing so well last year but not being able to attend this particular MLG. It is a tough position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.mlgpro.com/site/images/features2/procircuit_2011_545.jpg)
