|
I like the MLG format. It is hard to get in, but easy to stay in. It is like having a month of GSL code A, and Code S in three days (plus qualification for code A, open tournament). And you can count the matches during the first few rounds of the Championship Losers bracket your up/down matches. It will be best of open players("code A") vs worst of seeded players ("code S"). The up side is that the Code A qualifiers (top 16 of open bracket) don't have to wait an entire season to play in code S. So what if the top 4 of the groups stages gets seated into the Championship Winners Semis, they earned it. The points system should create the up/down scenario I talked about.
Sidebar: For those of you that do not understand the MLG points system, it will be like the Pro-Tennis points system after this year is over. You have to defend or better the points you earned in the specific tournaments that were held in the previous year. (it won't be venue that determines analogous events between the two years, but the order the tournament was played). Only the first tournament this year will use last years points. Players will acquire points throughout this year, and defend or better those points next year. So next year if you win a tournament that you did not enter this year, you will gain a maximum amount of points. If you win say the third event this year and then next year as well, you will not gain points, but you will not lose any points either.
Edit: I forgot to mention that code A qualifiers and and code A itself is single elimination, while MLG allows for a person to lose a "qualifier" (open tournament round) and still get to play in Championship bracket.
|
On February 28 2011 13:07 NearPerfection wrote:
Really sad that Esports in NA has become just like Hollywood where you get a huge advantage being a "star" and huge disadvantage for being a joe with more talent.
User was banned for this post.
Playing 23 best of 3 if you're not in one of the 16 players seeded is insane. I agree with perfect here. I can understand for later MLG's or at least the national one but yea...  :\
|
Soooo, it;s really fucking hard for an unseeded player to win a tournament even if he is the most skilled player in the entire tournament and has more chances to be cheesed out if he isn't near perfctly consistent AAAAND we get to see the least number of games from the best seeded and most well known players?
Why doesn't this format suck, again?
|
I..I thought you guys enjoyed my games ;_;
|
On February 28 2011 14:09 Veldril wrote:
If you look at the open tournament as a "qualifier" round, then it makes sense and not very unfair.
Take UEFA Champions League as an example, we have top 3 teams from top European countries (England, Italy, Spain, France and Germany and maybe more) directly seeded into group stage while smaller team from smaller country have to go through qualifying rounds. I think this is quite the same, but even loser get second chance to redeem themselves in loser brackets. It's funny that you mention this, because the difference between the format you're mentioning and MLG is the key point of contention for most of the detractors.
CL has seeds, but then they're seeded into their groups along with everyone else who qualified. If you check the MLG format again, you'll see that the top seeds coming out of the group stage are not in the Ro16 as the CL teams are - they're directly entered into the quarter and semi-finals.
The way the seeded players can skip rounds via their pool placement (without having to worry about falling out of the tournament completely, btw) is unfair at best, and nonsensical at worst.
The huge downside - aside from this perceived unfairness - being that the spectators actually get to see fewer games with the best players. >_>
I seriously think people would have a lot less problem with the format if the Championship Bracket were a regular 32-man single/double elimination bracket, with 16 players who earned their seeded spots in previous tournaments, and 16 players who earned their spot in the open tournament.
|
On February 28 2011 15:03 Ziggitz wrote:
Soooo, it;s really fucking hard for an unseeded player to win a tournament even if he is the most skilled player in the entire tournament and has more chances to be cheesed out if he isn't near perfctly consistent AAAAND we get to see the least number of games from the best seeded and most well known players?
Why doesn't this format suck, again?
1.only the good players will make it out of the open bracket
2. We see more games from the "best seeded" and well known players.
3. It doesn't, You just need to understand it.
|
Good write up, made it clear, thanks
|
I just hope this doesn't discourage Europeans and Koreans of going there to compete.
|
Awesome write-up, as usual, motbob.
Actually, kind of surprised this wasn't spotlighted, honestly - but I guess there was already an MLG spotlight recently so they might not want to overMLG people with the format stuff.
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but in regards to the issue of it being "too tough" for some random open player to win the tournament...
Wouldn't doing really well in the open and subsequent pool play earn this player a seed in later MLGs? So in one aspect, the 256 open tournament could be seen as earning your stripes for entrance to later MLGs, while the seeded players are the ones "truly" competing for the current MLG?
|
Thanks motbob, explained it perfectly to me 
|
Oooooooooooooooooooooh sweet, i kinda like this better.
|
I think any random player enrolled in the MLG bracket deserves to play. You never know there could be some unseen talent that overtakes the tournament and makes a splash on the SC2 scene.
|
Just wanted to say thanks a lot this helped me a lot.Diagrams and explanation took a lot of time sure thanks for your hard work.
It seems like a decent system, but players are going to need a lot of stamina and the bo3 finals I don't really like but dont know how to fix it.
|
On March 01 2011 02:18 Nick_54 wrote:
Just wanted to say thanks a lot this helped me a lot.Diagrams and explanation took a lot of time sure thanks for your hard work.
It seems like a decent system, but players are going to need a lot of stamina and the bo3 finals I don't really like but dont know how to fix it.
Ya BO3 Finals? BO5 or BO7 shows more of the finalists real skill in 1v1. Should definitely be changed.
|
I'll be interested to see what seeding points a player earns for each round - that will be key to seeing if someone can be seeded highly in the future not through a couple of hero performances but showing consistency in the open tournament and championship playoff/losers brackets.
|
On February 28 2011 17:54 Seronei wrote:
I just hope this doesn't discourage Europeans and Koreans of going there to compete.
The prize pool for a lot of them wouldn't of been worth it. This tournament format was practically the nail in the coffin for their participation. I wouldn't be surprised if the only non-NA players that we see are those that are in the Top 16 seed and right now it's only Socke.
|
On February 28 2011 16:51 Bobster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 14:09 Veldril wrote:
If you look at the open tournament as a "qualifier" round, then it makes sense and not very unfair.
Take UEFA Champions League as an example, we have top 3 teams from top European countries (England, Italy, Spain, France and Germany and maybe more) directly seeded into group stage while smaller team from smaller country have to go through qualifying rounds. I think this is quite the same, but even loser get second chance to redeem themselves in loser brackets. It's funny that you mention this, because the difference between the format you're mentioning and MLG is the key point of contention for most of the detractors. CL has seeds, but then they're seeded into their groups along with everyone else who qualified. If you check the MLG format again, you'll see that the top seeds coming out of the group stage are not in the Ro16 as the CL teams are - they're directly entered into the quarter and semi-finals. The way the seeded players can skip rounds via their pool placement (without having to worry about falling out of the tournament completely, btw) is unfair at best, and nonsensical at worst. The huge downside - aside from this perceived unfairness - being that the spectators actually get to see fewer games with the best players. >_> I seriously think people would have a lot less problem with the format if the Championship Bracket were a regular 32-man single/double elimination bracket, with 16 players who earned their seeded spots in previous tournaments, and 16 players who earned their spot in the open tournament.
But not every game is casted. Sure, the best players are playing fewer games, but by spreading them out, it's getting more interesting games to the viewers because they aren't all happening at the same time.
Also, isn't the open qualifier on the first day, and then the brackets start on the next day? A night of rest is pretty significant. No matter what, people coming from an open qualifier to blast through an entire tournament in a single weekend are GOING to be playing a lot of games - at least this way, if they do really well in the tournament, they'll have a good shot at picking up a seeded spot in the future.
|
Very simple read. Thanks for the clarification!
|
I think this format's pretty great. It gives the unseeded players (be it new players to MLG or just not so lucky ones from previous MLG) extra motivation to get top 16 seed. This of course goes out to the seeded players too. They gotta work hard to keep their seed. Of course, a lot of the work is done for them already, but they earned it from previous seasons :D
This is also great chance for unseeded players to really battle it out. They don't have to face the seeded players until later on. I'm sure a lot of the players don't wanna see seeded players knock each other out so early in the tournament.
Thanks for the explanation and diagram !
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
