|
On March 04 2011 03:53 MoreFaSho wrote:
The other thing this format does is that it gives lots of reasons for good players to try to play every event, to maintain and maximize their chance of being top 16. The format you're suggesting would have much lower spectator value like some of the previous MLG events (which were still very good).
Production Value!
This format will also allow MLG to have much better production value by letting them prepare interviews and video clips with the top players that will be seeding into the events every time. This makes the presentation 100x more awesome and gives better narratives.
Don't air the qualification rounds then. The only advantage I can see in terms of spectator value is with staggering play you allow high level stuff from the start as opposed to waiting until qualification is done. I mean honestly I have no problems with unseeded playing way more games, it's just the time constraint seems overly harsh.
I'll keep an open mind though, let see how this plays out. I admit it's challenging to work within the monetary constraints esports have. You simply don't have the time to do qualifiers the way Tennis might, or organize tournaments the way Champions League does it.
|
makes sense, would be absolutely terrible if for some reason a 'pro' ended up in the first losers bracket as that would be a metric ton of games to try and play to make it to the final.
|
On March 04 2011 19:39 Nerski wrote:
makes sense, would be absolutely terrible if for some reason a 'pro' ended up in the first losers bracket as that would be a metric ton of games to try and play to make it to the final. Yeah... would be terrible if any of these "pros" would have to play a metric ton of games to make it to the final:
SjoW
Gretorp
CauthonLuck
iNkA
LzGaMeR
Silver
ReSpOnSe
Fenix
Sen
Nazgul
CatZ
ThisisJimmy
WhiteRa
KawaiiRice
VTSpades
Torch
Moonan
Haypro
Vibe
dde
OH WAIT
But seriously, I still think having the best players
1) play mostly non-knockout games
2) play way fewer games than all other players
3) get a Top 24 spot guaranteed in a 272 player field
is pretty bad from an organisational, a fairness and a spectator perspective. Knockout games are always more entertaining to watch than relatively meaningless round robin games.
|
On March 04 2011 05:37 SaturnAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 03:53 MoreFaSho wrote:
The other thing this format does is that it gives lots of reasons for good players to try to play every event, to maintain and maximize their chance of being top 16. The format you're suggesting would have much lower spectator value like some of the previous MLG events (which were still very good).
Production Value!
This format will also allow MLG to have much better production value by letting them prepare interviews and video clips with the top players that will be seeding into the events every time. This makes the presentation 100x more awesome and gives better narratives. Don't air the qualification rounds then. The only advantage I can see in terms of spectator value is with staggering play you allow high level stuff from the start as opposed to waiting until qualification is done. I mean honestly I have no problems with unseeded playing way more games, it's just the time constraint seems overly harsh. I'll keep an open mind though, let see how this plays out. I admit it's challenging to work within the monetary constraints esports have. You simply don't have the time to do qualifiers the way Tennis might, or organize tournaments the way Champions League does it.
You realize that would be A LOT fewer quality games to air since you also essentially got rid of the groups as well. This format is much better for a player coming out of the open tournament than the format you suggest. Having 3 days of quality content vs 1.5 days tops is a huge difference.
Also to the "Top 24" comments from some others. Do they realize that anything short of Top 16 is a failure? It'll help a tiny bit in the future, but they'll be forced to join the open next event. Also this format creates heros. You want to root for the player coming through the open field because it's a cool story, even more of a David vs Goliath.
|
Damn, great explanation, thanks!
|
Canada569 Posts
this seems like a pretty good format. the only thing i could see as being a problem is just having the same 16 people seeded over and over again, but i guess they deserve that
|
Thanks alot, very much more understandable than the official info.
|
Thanks, nice thread. Also, i really like the format.
|
Seeded players extremely favored, too much for my taste - underestimates how much players develops over time and how different the situation is amongst the current players. Surprised so many are attending from so far, with a good chance of going out before pool and bracket play.
|
Hurray for more extended series
Dumbest. Idea. Ever.
Lets say the bruins and redwings come across each other in the playoffs. Redwings win first game 2-1. Should the next game start with the score 2-1, or 0-0? As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing fair about anything but a 0-0 start.
GET RID OF EXTENDED SERIES PLOX
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2011 22:41 Bobster wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 19:39 Nerski wrote:
makes sense, would be absolutely terrible if for some reason a 'pro' ended up in the first losers bracket as that would be a metric ton of games to try and play to make it to the final. Yeah... would be terrible if any of these "pros" would have to play a metric ton of games to make it to the final: SjoW Gretorp CauthonLuck iNkA LzGaMeR Silver ReSpOnSe Fenix Sen Nazgul CatZ ThisisJimmy WhiteRa KawaiiRice VTSpades Torch Moonan Haypro Vibe dde OH WAIT But seriously, I still think having the best players 1) play mostly non-knockout games 2) play way fewer games than all other players 3) get a Top 24 spot guaranteed in a 272 player field is pretty bad from an organisational, a fairness and a spectator perspective. Knockout games are always more entertaining to watch than relatively meaningless round robin games.
I agree with this 100%. I feel the system is very unfair to the unseeded players.
As for spectator value;
As a spectator I will not enjoy seein the good players play while knowing they have had a VIP-lane to get in the top. Frankly it will detract from any acomplisments they may make and I will feel it is undeserved; they should play under the same fundamental conditions as all other players. This is not SPORTMANLIKE at all; is there any other sport where seeded players get thrown in higher up in the brackets? I cant think of any. Its silly and elitist, and actually remove the sporting aspect completly (competing under the same conditions) and turns away from ESPORT and turns into an ESHOW.
Also I will be uninterested in the pool-play, the value of spectating a game is not determined mainly on who plays, but for the most part on what the specific game entails; and since its only about seeding (which also as early stated is unfair and allready feels negative to you as a spectator) it will not be very interesting. It will be much more interesting to follow the "no-names" way to the top.
All in all I feel that the system is really bad. I dont understand how they think they can promote ESPORT this way, and I dont understand how this tournamentformat could get a go from whoever is in charge.
Edit;
And if they use the results from this MLG to determine the seeds for next MLG its just insane, the same players will keep ending up at the top again and again since they are basically put there right from the start due to the format.
Sport is about fair competition. This tournament is anything but. And I believe that in most ppls eyes a result in MLG wont count as high as a result in minor, but more sportmanlike tournaments, like Go4SC2, Craftcup etc. It def. wont in my eyes.
Edit 2:
Thanks OP for the explanation. You did it very well.
|
And if they use the results from this MLG to determine the seeds for next MLG its just insane, the same players will keep ending up at the top again and again since they are basically put there right from the start due to the system.
MLG has been doing that since day 1. They want their most popular players to always be on top. From a business standpoint it makes the most sense. They don't have the luxury of being a huge league with hundreds of millions of fans across the world. If you listen to Sundance interviews, he almost always talks about how they have had to make sacrifices from their ideal model, because rent was due and they had no money.
I'm sure the sponsors love it too. If you are sponsoring say TLO, you want some assurance he will always be in the spotlight, unlike GSL where if you lose 3 series in a row, you can drop off the face of the planet.
|
On March 31 2011 07:39 sambo400 wrote:Show nested quote +
And if they use the results from this MLG to determine the seeds for next MLG its just insane, the same players will keep ending up at the top again and again since they are basically put there right from the start due to the system.
MLG has been doing that since day 1. They want their most popular players to always be on top. From a business standpoint it makes the most sense. They don't have the luxury of being a huge league with hundreds of millions of fans across the world. If you listen to Sundance interviews, he almost always talks about how they have had to make sacrifices from their ideal model, because rent was due and they had no money. I'm sure the sponsors love it too. If you are sponsoring say TLO, you want some assurance he will always be in the spotlight, unlike GSL where if you lose 3 series in a row, you can drop off the face of the planet.
Im talking about SC2 as an ESPORT. Sacrificing everything that could potentially make into a sport just to make money out of it is not a good trade. Its superficial and silly. Capitalism and sport dont usually mix well when capitalism holds the wheel.
If I was sponsering TLO I would want him to have good results, naturally, but I would want those results to be meaningful; as ppl will start to feel that placing in MLG dosent mean anything if you are seeded right into top 24 anyway, that will not give any seeded player positive marketvalue; only detract from it since most ppl will feel it undeserved.
|
I think it's going to be impossible for a open tour player to win this tournament. I don't know about the point system but i think the main goal for a open tour player like naniwa should be to go through the open tour and be satisfied with this points and hopefully they are enough for the next mlg to be seeded.
I really really hope that seeded players can fall out of their seeding spot if they perform bad quite easily. Otherwise it's going to be, like many said, always the same persons which are seeded once.
And i agree to the criticism about the extended series... that's just pure bullshit.
|
Even as a seeded player. That's a lot of top quality games you have to play over 2-3 days. For someone from the open bracket to win is nigh on impossible. Even if they have the quality, they will be burned out from all the games they had to reach the finals.
|
On March 31 2011 08:29 Logo2010 wrote:
Even as a seeded player. That's a lot of top quality games you have to play over 2-3 days. For someone from the open bracket to win is nigh on impossible. Even if they have the quality, they will be burned out from all the games they had to reach the finals.
It's about the money, money, money and not about fair competition. That was easily established once this format was released. Sadly it will be defended to the death because MLG is the only "major" NA LAN Tourney in town. People are starving and they rather eat the shit sandwich than throw it in the trash.
|
Even with that beautiful explanation I'm not a fan of double elimination still. It just adds unnecessary matches to a tournament and punishes non seed players that paid the same entry fee as everyone else. Go swiss or go home imo.
|
On March 31 2011 09:08 Baarn wrote:
Even with that beautiful explanation I'm not a fan of double elimination still. It just adds unnecessary matches to a tournament and punishes non see players that paid the same entry fee as everyone else. Go swiss or go home imo.
A swiss tournament with this number of players is simply impossible.
|
Not sure why MLG and NASL formats are so complicated. Why can't they be as simple as the GSL.
|
On March 31 2011 09:11 nart wrote:
Not sure why MLG and NASL formats are so complicated. Why can't they be as simple as the GSL.
This amuses me given the sheer number of people who complained about the GSl being too complicated with the up/down matches and group play.
Everything is "complicated" if you haven't really seen or gotten used to it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
