|
Another issue I see is that the pool play games between seeds on Day 1 and 2 (which are supposed to be one of the bigger plus points of the tournament format) are all non-elimination games.
Meaning that winning them will improve a player's chances in the tournament (by having him play fewer games, which opens a whole other angle of criticism), but no matter how many that player loses, he still is not out of the tournament. I strongly believe that a major draw of a double elimination tournament like MLG's 2010 events was that every game at every stage was vital for the survival of the players. Hell, even a regular round robin format, while not featuring "true" knockout games until the last round, is ultimately all about survival, making pretty much every game count.
Any system where a seeded player can lose his first 4 Bo3s and still win the tournament (while every other competitor is eliminated after losing only two Bo3s) is flawed, simple as that.
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.
*raises eyebrow*
16 out of 272 (total amount of players) isn't 80%. Neither is 16 out of 32 (Championship Bracket after Open Tournament and Pool Play).
Having a 256 man bracket seed 16 players into a 32 man Championship Bracket is fine, percentage wise. Now, the way the Championship Bracket itself is structured, that's a valid point of contention, but not the number of players involved here.
|
On February 28 2011 00:17 Bobster wrote:
Another issue I see is that the pool play games between seeds on Day 1 and 2 (which are supposed to be one of the bigger plus points of the tournament format) are all non-elimination games.
Meaning that winning them will improve a player's chances in the tournament (by having him play fewer games, which opens a whole other angle of criticism), but no matter how many that player loses, he still is not out of the tournament. I strongly believe that a major draw of a double elimination tournament like MLG's 2010 events was that every game at every stage was vital for the survival of the players. Hell, even a regular round robin format, while not featuring "true" knockout games until the last round, is ultimately all about survival, making pretty much every game count.
Any system where a seeded player can lose his first 4 Bo3s and still win the tournament (while the open players are eliminated after losing only two Bo3s) is flawed, simple as that.
This honestly cannot be stressed enough. It's not that the 16 seeds are gaining an advantage, it's that they are playing under a COMPLETELY different set of rules. On top of that if you do somehow manage to make it out of the OPEN tournament as the top 16 players you would think you would get a shot at eliminating the other 16 seeds somehow in the championship bracket. Since you know, top 16 out of 256 should say these guys aren't scrubs. WRONG! MLG decides to protect them even further.
The 16 seed's(pool play) are still out of reach at the top until seeds 25-32(bottom 12 of the open tournament) eliminate themselves. You would think the winner's bracket would continue and people getting their first loss would get tossed down to the loser's bracket but nope, they instantly get to defeat themselves. In what planet does that make sense?
The cards are so stacked against non-seeds it's disgusting and just looking at the top 32 seeds no one can say that difference in skill level between seed 16 and seed 17 warrant such a HUGE advantage(guaranteeing them top 24 finish). Especially in a game like SC2. If this format was only for the Championship at the end of the year(which is what I initially thought when I saw the HUGE advantage top 16 seeds received) I could see the case made for it.
Thanks for this thread and explanation motbob.
|
Real quick I wanted to shine a light on WHY those 16 players are protected so incredibly much.
If anyone followed the Halo scene at ALL in the past few years, you'd know that the top 16 teams are legitimate celebrity status in the scene, MLG does everything they can to hype up these team's players, gives them sponsorships (from dr pepper/doritos) and t.v. series. They do NOT want these teams to lose to scrubs, or even competent teams - ever.
Eventually this came to the actuality that it was so physically grueling that almost ZERO teams would ever come from open bracket into the top 16. I believe it was the norm for 1 or even 0 teams to accomplish this a YEAR.
MLG is going to protect these 16 players by making it almost impossible for them to lose, because they will be investing heavily into the popularity status of these players. There will be commercials/contracts/series/forced drama and more between these players.
I can say with all confidence that MLG will be a tournament in which there is simply no point in entering if you are in the open bracket. You can play 18 matches, lose twice and be out, meanwhile a top 16 seeded person can lose EVERY SINGLE MATCH (four!!!) before they get knocked out, and be given money/sponsors/advertisements for it.
Regardless, this will do a LOT for the e-sports scene, just very much hurt those gamers who are trying to enter the competitive SC2 world.
|
wow a single diagram made mlg format a simple format for me just wow
nice job motbob
|
wow great write up. you really simplified everything. I dont mind that non-seeds have a hard time, because the seeds have already paid their dues, so to speak. i think that the proven players should be exposed to less risk from spawn position, cheese, and other bullshit losses.
I also like how first place from the losers has to win 2 best ofs. how does extended series work with this? doesnt it mean that its triple stacked for the winner of the winners league? if A (winners champion) knocked out B (losers champion) earlier, will the first championship set be extended series? so he will have to win a bo7 from 1 behind, and THEN win a bo5?
|
Thanks this makes more sense to me now, I really appreciate it motbob.
|
A lot of posts here hit the nail on the head. Having an open bracket and a championship bracket is fine, a lot of events have BYOC qualifiers and the like, but having a tournament format that makes people compete on uneven terms is not fine.
If you qualifiy from the open bracket you should be on even footing with everyone else in the championship bracket. As it stand, if you enter the open bracket you're out after losing two Bo3s whereas a seeded player can affort to lose 4 Bo3s and still stay in the tournament. You are giving extra lives to some players, the rules favour them. It's not fair competition. If they are the best then they will win playing with the same rules as everyone else.
"IdrA lost, but since we know he's actually better than that we'll give him another chance". That's what you're saying with this format.
edit: also, I don't think it makes sense for losses in the open bracket to carry over into the championship bracket. The open bracket is just a qualification tournament. It's not like losses from previous MLGs carry over.
|
the way you've drawn it seems to set up an insane number of extended series. I'm just looking at where the players fall from group play into the championship losers bracket.
If all of one group is falling into the same thread of the loser's bracker, then you're practically guaranteeing several extended series unless the one guy who came out of the open bracket manages to charge through.
I don't know if MLG plans this exact distribution, but if I were them I would stagger it so that group A 2nd awaits the winner of group B 3rd vs the winner of group C 4th vs the winner of group D 5th vs X. That sentence technically makes sense but just look at the diagram to see what I'm talking about.
If they don't split the groups up, then they're going to have one hell of a long tournament on their hands.
|
On February 28 2011 03:18 talismania wrote:
the way you've drawn it seems to set up an insane number of extended series. I'm just looking at where the players fall from group play into the championship losers bracket.
I don't think he drew it correctly. The simulated bracket Slasher posted has the groups more spread out in the loser's bracket.
|
Didn't understand it before this, thanks a lot motbob!
|
I get it, and I get what they're trying to achieve with it - protection.
However;
How can pool play start 'immediately on day one' when awaiting 1/5 of the players to qualify from the open bracket? Each player can play 3 bo3s and then they run out of opponents until the open bracket is finished!
|
On February 28 2011 03:40 andytb wrote:
I get it, and I get what they're trying to achieve with it - protection.
However;
How can pool play start 'immediately on day one' when awaiting 1/5 of the players to qualify from the open bracket? Each player can play 3 bo3s and then they run out of opponents until the open bracket is finished!
the 4 play each other first, the fifth is going to run the gauntlet when they qualify
|
So worst case scenario coming from the Open Bracket is 21 bo3's; average 14min a game comes out to 14.7hours of game time (winning each 2-1) or 9.8hours of game time if you win them all 2-0.
Best case scenario coming from the Open Bracket is 10 bo3's and 4 games from Pool Play, average 14min a game comes out to 7.9hours of game time (winning each 2-1) or 5.6hours of game time if you win them all 2-0.
If you're a seed and start from Pool Play you immediately have to play your 4games from Pool Play and then at best 3 bo3's in the Championship Bracket; again average 14min a game comes out to 2.3hours of game time if you win them all 2-0. If you lose in the Championship Bracket you at worst have to play your 4games from Pool Play and then 5 bo3's in order to win with 4.4hours of game time.
For comparison, in the GSL starting from the Code S you have to play at best 13 games; average 14min a game comes out to 3hours of game time or at worst 4.9hours of game time.
So from the looks of it, being a top16 seed and starting from Code S you have to play the same amount of games in order to win it all. If you're not a seed then you better be ready for a gaming marathon the likes of which most of people have not done before and GL with that 
edit: that was alot of math and would be a good add to the OP lol.
|
I guess simplicity is no longer a virtue in this world. :/
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On February 28 2011 03:22 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 03:18 talismania wrote:
the way you've drawn it seems to set up an insane number of extended series. I'm just looking at where the players fall from group play into the championship losers bracket. I don't think he drew it correctly. The simulated bracket Slasher posted has the groups more spread out in the loser's bracket.
Yeah, it's just me being lazy with copy and paste. The real format will have the #5 and group A and the #4 in group A in different parts of the bracket.
|
On February 28 2011 03:58 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 03:22 hugman wrote:On February 28 2011 03:18 talismania wrote:
the way you've drawn it seems to set up an insane number of extended series. I'm just looking at where the players fall from group play into the championship losers bracket. I don't think he drew it correctly. The simulated bracket Slasher posted has the groups more spread out in the loser's bracket. Yeah, it's just me being lazy with copy and paste. The real format will have the #5 and group A and the #4 in group A in different parts of the bracket.
Actually it's quite a bit more different. Here is my rough edit of your image I did with the correct spots.
|
On February 28 2011 03:55 TheBB wrote:
I guess simplicity is no longer a virtue in this world. :/
All else being equal, simplicity is obviously a virtue.
I think the reason that the format is so complicated is because MLG is trying to meet so many different and occasionally conflicting goals, including but not limited to:
a) Being able to broadcast good games throughout the tourney schedule
b) Making it worthwhile for the most popular/marketable players to show up even if they have to travel a great distance. (This is closely related to what another poster mentioned about ensuring a stable group of top players)
c) Making it possible for anybody to sign up and play
d) Making a structure that is fair to the players.
e) Making a structure that is entertaining to spectators.
Having a simple and easy to understand tournament structure, while desirable, is less important to them than the above things.
While the system as it stands is extremely complicated, I don't think that in itself is enough to hurt them. As several other posters have pointed out, I think the biggest challenge will be finding a balance between protecting top players and serving as a viable path for new talent. Both of these things should be important to both fans and players.
Just from quickly eyeballing the system, it looks like it is more fair in this sense than the GSL, but that is setting the bar pretty low.
|
So, could something happen where during the pool group stage, player A beats player B 2-0, but player B goes on to win the group, and then win the winners championship bracket.
And then player A goes on to win the losers championship bracket.
It'll result in an extended series, with the person coming up from LOSERS having the advantage right? That seems to big a pretty glaring weakness to this format, other than that I think it looks pretty solid.
|
On February 28 2011 01:39 EMCL wrote:
Real quick I wanted to shine a light on WHY those 16 players are protected so incredibly much.
If anyone followed the Halo scene at ALL in the past few years, you'd know that the top 16 teams are legitimate celebrity status in the scene, MLG does everything they can to hype up these team's players, gives them sponsorships (from dr pepper/doritos) and t.v. series. They do NOT want these teams to lose to scrubs, or even competent teams - ever.
...
Okay, this MLG format totally makes sense in the context of Halo teams. But competitive SC2 is primarily 1v1, and imho there are more than 16 players who can beat each other on any given day. As stated in previous replies, it seems the top 16 essentially have "extra lives" in this tournament format.
|
probably been said or mentioned already in the thread, but is the plan to filter the 4 pools in a straight like linear type fashion? where all of the a placements are at the top, b next, etc? seems kind of dumb since the same matches will occur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
