|
United States1495 Posts
On February 27 2011 15:34 McCain wrote: A non-seeded player could play as many as 21 Bo3s. That's between 42 and 63 games of Starcraft 2, and if the average game lasts 14 minutes, that means approximately 12 hours of total playing time coming from the open bracket.
I think it's safe to say that this system will not encourage new talent to enter the scene. I would say new talent doesn't BAM show up on MLGs, nor do I think it is the best place for that, especially given the number of easily accessible weekly online tournaments (TL Open to name one). You don't see someone suddenly stop shooting basketball games at their home enter the NBA, or someone who plays baseball in a adult amateur league to suddenly enter the MLB. Everyone has to work their way there, through college sports, minor leagues etc etc.
This is Major League Gaming, for professional gamers, sure anyone can enter, but you still have to earn your place, and if you can play 21 BO3s, then great, if not, keep practicing, play tournaments, develop the skills and confidence to play at the professional level. Theres a lot of difference between sitting in your room and playing, and sitting at a professional LAN environment and playing.
|
Indeed, I can now say with confidence that I understand the system Thanks.
|
Ok, they now look more like GSL with the crazy ass format, now they only need to use the GSL maps :D
|
I actually like the format. I'd honestly rather play all day than sit around watching. If I have to play 21 matches, so be it :D
|
that's going to be a lot games played for those in the open play but yea man
thanks for the info...very informative
|
This sounds great. Thanks!
|
On February 27 2011 15:18 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 15:16 blade55555 wrote: Hey thanks for explaining this very detailed and informative. That is crazy that a player that has to play in the open tournament will end up playing 21 bo3's is that if they were too win the tournament unless I misread.
Thanks for the post again greatly appreciated^_^. The maximum number is 21, though a more likely number would be something like sixteen. slightly embarrassed to ask this because i'm too lazy to do the math myself. What exactly are these worst/best case scenarios?
|
I don't mind the 'extended' series thing at all. Same principle as GSL's group play. Whoever the system feels is already ranked as higher, gets preference, like how Jinro had to roflstomp oGsMC twice to advance in last season.
Fantastic job with the breakdown, appreciate.
|
On February 27 2011 16:23 caelym wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 15:18 motbob wrote:On February 27 2011 15:16 blade55555 wrote: Hey thanks for explaining this very detailed and informative. That is crazy that a player that has to play in the open tournament will end up playing 21 bo3's is that if they were too win the tournament unless I misread.
Thanks for the post again greatly appreciated^_^. The maximum number is 21, though a more likely number would be something like sixteen. slightly embarrassed to ask this because i'm too lazy to do the math myself. What exactly are these worst/best case scenarios?
Extended series i think. So if you keep meeting guys that have beaten you before. You have to win 2 bo3s.
Best scenario is you never meet guys that you have beaten/ been beaten by.
|
Nice writeup, now i just meed to know the locations after columbus so i can try and fit one in my schedule. Assuming the open play passes will be purchasable by anyone?
Even if i lose both matches i can still say i went to MLG
|
Thank you so much bob! 30sec glance at the pic and I got it after spending 10min reading the MLG written description I was still lost.
|
I think you should add that the 16-32 players get seeded in the Open Bracket. Otherwise, amazing writeup! This cleared up my understanding of the bracket beyond a shadow of a doubt.
|
Well then, motbob sure did show me up. I will be using everything here and facilitate onto the site all MLG explanations, well done!
Running a 256-man open bracket in a three day weekend is tough, especially if you want double elimination. As long as you don't lose in the first round of the Open Bracket, which is extremely unlikely, it shouldn't be too bad.
|
WOW! I can understand now... all it took was 4 minutes of looking at your beautifully drawn out diagram. Pay this man asap MLG!
|
|
still not a good format imo
I want to see a legit tournament not showmatches and protected seeded players. It's very different from gomtv and OSL/MSL seeds because it's a massive fatigue difference and it all crammed into 3 days.
Now if a korean flys in, he can expect to be completely fatigued, less sleep, and more exposed build order wise. It's not bad to have seeds or "S class" type system, but with the international aspect of SC2, it just makes more sense to make a one weekend tournament a little friendlier to non seeded / international players.
It's almost better to not enter in winner's bracket of the 256 man tournament to avoid an extra 15-25 games in pool play
|
Wow, what a complicated format!
|
Thank you for this visualisation. Yet somehow I believe we will still hear during the cast: "and now for this Loser Bracket #29 Game" without having a clue about how close to the final that is.
Naming conventions for the brackets should really be turned around. (Losers Final ->Loser Bracket#2 -> #3 etc.)
|
This tournament structre makes sense, a bit hard to understand at first, but this was beautifully written and made it so easy to understand. thanks so much OP. made it all seem so simple.
21 best of 3s could be 63 games... at least 42, probably over 50. 50 games at 20minutes is almost 17hours of game time.. thats not tournament time, thats time actually in the game playing, once you account for waiting around, being in the lobby all that stuff, thats a very very long weekend
|
On February 27 2011 16:41 dacthehork wrote: still not a good format imo
I want to see a legit tournament not showmatches and protected seeded players.
any tournament without seeding is very luck based and ruins the legitimacy imo.
|
|
|
|