|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On February 27 2011 18:43 BattRoll wrote:
To Motbob - I have the same viewpoint as avilo. I'm not discontent because I didn't perform. I would never qualify for one of these tournaments in a million years. But it stands to reason that with a game as big and popular as starcraft 2 - the pool of talent is constantly changing. Having 80% of your tournament players automatically moved ahead because of what they accomplished months ago is ridiculous. I have no problem with maybe the top 2 or even top 4 players securing a position but it seems like a lot of these tournaments are pretty much trying to segregate recognizable faces from the crowd to cater to their audience in lieu of having a fair competition. I think this is wrong.
An alternative could simply be to have favored players in different qualifying divisions so they would be less likely to face each other earlier.
We don't know how long rank points last in the MLG system. Maybe seeding is based off of the last three tournaments, or for the current season, or something else. Maybe the points are actually quite volatile, meaning seeding would change a lot from event to event. That would actually be a good question to ask Slasher, or maybe someone who follows MLG Halo 3 knows: how exactly does the rank point system work?
|
On February 27 2011 18:07 avilo wrote:
GSL/SC1/TSL all are great examples of tournaments where you prove yourself through your gameplay, not your reality star rating.
First off, how are you defining star rating? The seeded players in the first MLG event will be the top 16 finishers from the previous season. I believe that every MLG thereafter will be based on their current point total that season. How is that different from GSL code S? Getting into code S is just as difficult. An unknown player would first have to make it through the preliminaries (at least 4 best of 3s) just to get into code A, win three more best of 3 to get into the up/down matches then win one more game in two attempts. That's at least 7-8 bo3s to reach code S. If you are unseeded in MLG and win your first 7 bo3s, then you are in group play with the seeded players.
On February 27 2011 18:30 BattRoll wrote:
My issue with this format is there are too few open slots for new contestants. I think that with the level of talent out there, having 16 players automatically advance and only having 4 players given the option to join them into the tournament results in lower quality play as a whole.
There are still 12 more players alive in the tournament who can still win the championship. They effectively play a group stage where they need to win out to "win the group." They lowest players end up playing up through the rankings of the group (5, 4, 3, 2, 1, though not all of those rankings will come from the same initial group) inside the loser's bracket.
|
On February 27 2011 18:51 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 18:43 BattRoll wrote:
To Motbob - I have the same viewpoint as avilo. I'm not discontent because I didn't perform. I would never qualify for one of these tournaments in a million years. But it stands to reason that with a game as big and popular as starcraft 2 - the pool of talent is constantly changing. Having 80% of your tournament players automatically moved ahead because of what they accomplished months ago is ridiculous. I have no problem with maybe the top 2 or even top 4 players securing a position but it seems like a lot of these tournaments are pretty much trying to segregate recognizable faces from the crowd to cater to their audience in lieu of having a fair competition. I think this is wrong.
An alternative could simply be to have favored players in different qualifying divisions so they would be less likely to face each other earlier. We don't know how long rank points last in the MLG system. Maybe seeding is based off of the last three tournaments, or for the current season, or something else. Maybe the points are actually quite volatile, meaning seeding would change a lot from event to event. That would actually be a good question to ask Slasher, or maybe someone who follows MLG Halo 3 knows: how exactly does the rank point system work?
You automatically lose points for each event, Also you can gain points from LAN centers and online qualifiers to improve you're placement/seeding.
|
I think we're going to see that seeded players are going to have a significant physical advantage over the non-seeded players when the final matches of the event roll around.
Exactly the way it should be.
|
Can someone explain this to me - it seems that 5th placed player in Open Bracket will play 3 matches less than the 4th placed guy if he finished last in his Pool play, which seems a bit silly. I would probably be more happy with 5th place, than taking 4th and then going into Pool play where you have 4 Bo3 against obviously the best players (as they are seeded). With 5th place, you go into Losers Bracket, play one game, and then you are at the same place as if you went into Pool play and finished last after 4 matches.
|
|
|
On February 27 2011 18:07 avilo wrote:
I'm very disappointed that these big tournaments keep trying to enforce these formats that "protect" and give advantages to the already established big name players.
As said in OP, someone coming from the open bracket has to play potentially 21 bo3s to win, whereas a seeded "celebrity player" (because that's what these tournaments are now doing) has to only win potentially 7 bo3 games.
I understand that MLG/NASL want to push e-sports further in the west, but compromising the integrity of the game is not the way to go about it. This is not basketball. This is not reality TV.
Seeding is perfectly acceptable. Auto-placing players into a bracket is not. Do you see legitimate sports doing this ever? Roget federer and Nadal are not auto-placed into the semi finals of each grand slam.
They work their way through each opponent, proving they are better though their skills, not through their name-value and reality TV star rating that NASL is trying to do, and that MLG seems to be copying, albeit not as bad.
I understand that there are popular players, and that they are all very good. Let them prove it through their games, don't alienate the kajillion other up and commers and unknowns that want to prove themselves but are put at a disadvantage either because they are not popular or just got in the scene.
If these unknown players can beat a high profile player in a best out of three, that is the way it is. Tournaments need to stop trying to "protect" players in this fashion.
It's also understandable that you do not want to see a high profile player bashing a noob in round 1 or round 2. This can easily be avoided by having some minimum entry prerequisite, such as being in masters league or at a certain rating.
GSL/SC1/TSL all are great examples of tournaments where you prove yourself through your gameplay, not your reality star rating.
There are plenty of awesome players that have played in the TSL tournaments but guess what? They get beaten just like anyone else. And TSL gives every player the chance to show they can compete with the big names.
Am I the only one who is voicing these concerns about the direction these tournaments are going?
Just wanted to comment on this part, you cannot really avoid this. I mean, where are you going to set the limit? Idra for example would bash anyone who's not at the very top of the ladder, and most likely bash alot of them too. And you can't really deny those people from entering the tournament.
|
First, I think this format seems interesting and I look forward to seeing it in action. It is different for sure, but I'm going to trust that the people trying to make a living doing this have thought it through and the result will be a better format for spectators and acceptable for players. We'll have to see.
With that said, I think people have to understand that you can't have it both ways. You can't wish that eSports grow, we have more tournaments with bigger prize pools and more pros, and then get mad when the business side of it starts to take over.
Simply put, popular/better players => more spectators => more sponsorships => good prizes
So when these formats that are now existing that try to make sure the better and more popular players are around longer you can't be surprised. It is a business and they are trying to make money and sometimes that means there will be advantages for some to help ensure the best product possible. If you are a deserving player you'll have to just work your way up the ranks and at that point maybe you'll be the one being seeded ahead.
|
On February 27 2011 18:07 avilo wrote:
Seeding is perfectly acceptable. Auto-placing players into a bracket is not. Do you see legitimate sports doing this ever? Roget federer and Nadal are not auto-placed into the semi finals of each grand slam.
But Nadal and Federer ARE 32 of the seeded that are given automatic entry into the Grand Slams' 128 man bracket, along with a few other top ranked players. Other athletes have to qualify just to get into the tournament itself.
If you draw a parallel to it, just imagine MLG pool play/championship bracket as the that final 128 man Grand Slam roster, and the Open championship the qualification to get into the "Grand Slam," which would be our pool play and championship bracket. Nadal and Federer don't have to qualify for every Grand Slam they enter, they're given a spot automatically. It's not because they are celebrities, it's because through their system they've proven their top caliber and deserve the spots.
With a clearly defined system deciding the top 16 seed for these events, it rewards performance the same as tennis rewards top ranked players with automatic berths.
|
Fantastic explanation.
The visual diagram is particularly amazing.
The format makes a lot of sense for spectators and having pool play between the top players is a really big step forward; giving us lots of great games to watch right from Day1.
However, they still need to get rid of the extended series bullshit! (especially in the final).
|
damn if you are non seeded, you might have to play 21 bo3s to get to the finals. That is a possible 63 games. The most I have ever laddered is 20+ straight. I hope it is spread out over a few days.
|
On February 27 2011 18:36 motbob wrote:
MLG is seeding these guys because they performed. They played well and finished high in the tournament standings.
And the guys who probably aren't very happy about this format? They didn't perform.
The "protection" is there for those skilled enough to claim it.
I think the problem isn't with the fact that there is seeding, but with the apparent extent of the advantage given to the seeds. We'll have to wait and see quite how much of an advantage the seeding does give to players, but it's worth being concerned that the Pool Play might give an unfair advantage to the seeds by being introduced at such a late stage of the tournament.
That said, I don't think the general structure of the tournament is inherantly biased towards the seeds. I suspect that if it does turn out that players see the tournament as being skewed too far in favour of the seeds, an easy enough fix would be to simply introduce the Pool Play at an earlier stage of the tournament, thus reducing the number of games that the seeds skip, but still rewarding them for their performance. I'm sure MLG have enough people monitoring and thinking about these issues that they'll be able to make adequate adjustments if they deem them necessary.
But as I say, we'll have to wait and see how things pan out. I'm actually quite excited about the general structure. Round robin BO3s, in particular, are something I've wanted to see for a while, and a 256-player Open Bracket seems like a fantastic way of allowing unkown-but-skilled players to demonstrate their skills and get noticed.
|
On February 27 2011 21:30 fxSolo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 18:07 avilo wrote:
Seeding is perfectly acceptable. Auto-placing players into a bracket is not. Do you see legitimate sports doing this ever? Roget federer and Nadal are not auto-placed into the semi finals of each grand slam.
But Nadal and Federer ARE 32 of the seeded that are given automatic entry into the Grand Slams' 128 man bracket, along with a few other top ranked players. Other athletes have to qualify just to get into the tournament itself. If you draw a parallel to it, just imagine MLG pool play/championship bracket as the that final 128 man Grand Slam roster, and the Open championship the qualification to get into the "Grand Slam," which would be our pool play and championship bracket. Nadal and Federer don't have to qualify for every Grand Slam they enter, they're given a spot automatically. It's not because they are celebrities, it's because through their system they've proven their top caliber and deserve the spots. With a clearly defined system deciding the top 16 seed for these events, it rewards performance the same as tennis rewards top ranked players with automatic berths.
That comparison is wrong on so many levels.
First off, getting entry into the top 128 is hugely different from top 32 (or more like top 20) as in MLG.
Second, in tennis players can qualify for the Grand Slam with points earned from ALL tournaments. E.g. points earned in small european tournaments will give entry to the US open. If it was in tennis like in MLG, you would mostly earn points for being seeded in the grand slam by playing in teh grand slam. And here is that major point of critcism of the MLG system. Once you are in the top 16 you have hugely bigger chances of making points again, thus staying in the top16. The turnover of players will be quite low, and new players have an extremely hard time to get into the system. For players from abroad that are not in the top16, it is not very tempting to travel to MLG, because they are in a huge disadvantage from the start.
tl,dr:
If the MLG system really was like at the tennis grand slam as you suggested (top128 getting better bracket, qualification points can be collected all over the world), noone would critisize it as it would be very fair. Unfortunately it is not.
|
The format would be incredibly clever, if it didnt punished non-seeded players this much. This will discourage a lot of EU/KR to go there.
|
motbob = getting it DONE(once again)
cheers mate, i understand it now
|
@caelm
Here are the best/worst case scenarios. Please note, that they don't take the Extended Series into account. First of all ES doesn't matter to winning players, so the best case doesn't change. Also strictly theoretically speaking ES doesn't add any Bo3's, it changes them into Bo7's. Lastly I'm unsure how many ESes are theoretically possible. In past MLG's it was limited to 1, but due to Pool Play this might increase.
Seeded player(best case): 7 Bo3's (4 in Pool Play(1st); 3 in CC Bracket)
Seeded player(worst case): 14 Bo3's (4 in Pool Play(last); 10 in CC Bracket)
Unseeded player(best case): 13 Bo3's (6 in Open Bracket(WB Ro4); 4 in Pool Play(1st); 3 in CC Bracket)
Unseeded player(worst case): 21 Bo3's (9 in OpenBracket(WB 1st round loss); 12 in CC Bracket)
IMHO the system is sheer genius. It rewards success and consistency while being completely open to newcomers. Dear Mr. DiGiovanni give your employees a pat on the back for a job well done and squaring the circle.
|
Wow thanks for explaining it so well Motbob.
|
motbob does what MLG doesn't. I was one of the many who was initially super confused since I've never seen that format before. I figured it out (unthinkable to not know MLG's format if you want to follow it properly!) after re-reading it and the accompanying comments a couple times, but man. I still don't like the system for reasons I already outlined in the original thread.
Brilliant work, good sir.
|
This schedule brings out the sport in e-sports.
GSL is all fine and dandy, but the +3 days you get to practice for 1 opponent, and to get you mentally in the best position makes it look like tennis. Also a great sport but 80% of the time the winner is not even starting to sweat when the game is over.
This MLG format is brutal, the games might be a less qualitative but the players will have to work their asses off.
I would love to see this. And ofcourse I will  .
Thank you motbob.
|
double post, my apologies
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
