|
Thanks a lot for this, I agree this format is really awesome for us viewers.
|
On February 28 2011 00:23 Bobster 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. *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.
I just threw 80% out there as a general 'out my my ass' term for how I see these types of tournaments in general. However given that for this particular tournament - 50% of players are automatically qualified. And the other 50% are qualified after the initial placements matches - oh wait, no they aren't. The majority of them are forced to play a grueling marathon of games - basically burning them out and lowering their chances of success later on in the tournament, further favoring the elite group of players that get to sit on their thrones because they did well in the same tournament months ago when the overall level of competition was not as fierce and the game wasn't as evolved.
I guess my point is that favoritism shouldn't exist to such an extent in these types of tournaments. I enjoy watching high level play and it's undeniable that this format leads itself away from that.
If some kid goes on a tear that nobody has heard of in a tournament - then I want to see that kid be able to win in a fair environment. Instead of losing his will to live 3/4s through the qualifying rounds, barely making it out and then playing some freshly awoken jacked up on mountain dew e-sports celebrity that has business connections to the tournament through sponsorship.
|
Shouldn't the finals and semifinals be at least Bo5?
|
On February 28 2011 06:28 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
Shouldn't the finals and semifinals be at least Bo5?
would prefer this too
|
8751 Posts
On February 28 2011 06:13 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 05:48 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On February 28 2011 04:59 avilo wrote:On February 27 2011 21:30 fxSolo wrote: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. Which is exactly what I said. It's perfectly acceptable to seed these players in a tournament. What is not acceptable is automatically placing them into the round of 16 and semi finals when there are a vast amount of competitors looking to make their name and fame. You drew an incorrect parallel to try to support your point. They earned their SEEDS. They did not get auto-placed into the semi-finals or ro16 like these tournaments are doing. The seeding in legitimate competitions reward players that have shown they can compete and beat good players already. What it does not do is automatically assume these players will win every game they play for the rest of their lives into the round of 16/semi-finals. And even in your parallel, Tennis uses lots, lots of qualifiers and "wild cards" to allow players that have shown they can compete with the best entry into these events. Players that already have a ranking can get into the grand slams, and players that have none can qualify through a qualifier. But also a wild card can be given to a player that has shown they can compete with the best, etc. In no way do seeds = automatically placeing competitors further in the bracket. What it does is give them an easier bracket, and as a matter of fact, now that I think about it and that you bring it up, and that these tournaments bring it up, Roger Federer, Nadal, etc etc. in fact do a lot of times bash players that can be considered "noobs" in the first round or two. They work their way through the draw, they aren't ordained further in the draw by the gods. Compared to the OSL, MSL and GSL, MLG's format is very kind to unseeded players. Read this: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/OSL#Tournament_FormatThat's the best SC league in the history of the world and it has a ton of seeding past a ton of rounds for its seeded players. Some of the best players have been unable to advance from its open tournament (which isn't even truly open to everyone -- there is yet another layer of qualification via progamer licensing). It can be really difficult to penetrate but it has worked great for years. No doubt that's it difficult but there comes a time when EVERYONE is placed on the same footing to the top seeds. In all of those tournaments I don't see where a seed is a guaranteed placement of position that the other non-seeds can't equally accomplish. In MLG only the non-seeds can finish 32nd in the final stage, not even those in pool play can finish that low, they are guaranteed minimum 24th. In the OSL once people reach the group stage EVERYONE is on the same footing and they move forward. You don't have the top 4 seeds going directly to the semi-finals like in MLG. Can you tell me where this same footing even occurs in the championship bracket?(The four that make it into pool play isn't everyone on the same footing) Because to my eyes it never exists.
The 4 players that make it into pool play are on equal footing as the seeds. Anyone can sign up for the open tournament, make it into pool play, get first in their group, and automatically be in the top 6 of the whole tournament and 3 bo3's away from winning the whole thing.
|
8751 Posts
On February 28 2011 06:09 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 05:48 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On February 28 2011 04:59 avilo wrote:On February 27 2011 21:30 fxSolo wrote: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. Which is exactly what I said. It's perfectly acceptable to seed these players in a tournament. What is not acceptable is automatically placing them into the round of 16 and semi finals when there are a vast amount of competitors looking to make their name and fame. You drew an incorrect parallel to try to support your point. They earned their SEEDS. They did not get auto-placed into the semi-finals or ro16 like these tournaments are doing. The seeding in legitimate competitions reward players that have shown they can compete and beat good players already. What it does not do is automatically assume these players will win every game they play for the rest of their lives into the round of 16/semi-finals. And even in your parallel, Tennis uses lots, lots of qualifiers and "wild cards" to allow players that have shown they can compete with the best entry into these events. Players that already have a ranking can get into the grand slams, and players that have none can qualify through a qualifier. But also a wild card can be given to a player that has shown they can compete with the best, etc. In no way do seeds = automatically placeing competitors further in the bracket. What it does is give them an easier bracket, and as a matter of fact, now that I think about it and that you bring it up, and that these tournaments bring it up, Roger Federer, Nadal, etc etc. in fact do a lot of times bash players that can be considered "noobs" in the first round or two. They work their way through the draw, they aren't ordained further in the draw by the gods. Compared to the OSL, MSL and GSL, MLG's format is very kind to unseeded players. Read this: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/OSL#Tournament_Format Come on, that's still not an argument for why it's good. Next MLG you need to lose 5 Bo3 to be eliminated, iNcontrol can only lose 2 (unless he doesn't lose any in the open bracket). I think that disparity is way too big.
I didn't say it's an argument for why it's good although it is evidence that could be used for such an argument. Avilo said there aren't any legitimate sports that advance seeds deep into their brackets so I was teaching him about SC leagues, which should make any discussion of sports or other games irrelevant.
Yeah, the tournament changes from a double elim bracket to a round robin at the point when the seeds are mixed with the open players. You don't have a point. I'm not sure what you're misunderstanding here.
|
On February 28 2011 06:34 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 06:13 Hrrrrm wrote:On February 28 2011 05:48 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On February 28 2011 04:59 avilo wrote:On February 27 2011 21:30 fxSolo wrote: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. Which is exactly what I said. It's perfectly acceptable to seed these players in a tournament. What is not acceptable is automatically placing them into the round of 16 and semi finals when there are a vast amount of competitors looking to make their name and fame. You drew an incorrect parallel to try to support your point. They earned their SEEDS. They did not get auto-placed into the semi-finals or ro16 like these tournaments are doing. The seeding in legitimate competitions reward players that have shown they can compete and beat good players already. What it does not do is automatically assume these players will win every game they play for the rest of their lives into the round of 16/semi-finals. And even in your parallel, Tennis uses lots, lots of qualifiers and "wild cards" to allow players that have shown they can compete with the best entry into these events. Players that already have a ranking can get into the grand slams, and players that have none can qualify through a qualifier. But also a wild card can be given to a player that has shown they can compete with the best, etc. In no way do seeds = automatically placeing competitors further in the bracket. What it does is give them an easier bracket, and as a matter of fact, now that I think about it and that you bring it up, and that these tournaments bring it up, Roger Federer, Nadal, etc etc. in fact do a lot of times bash players that can be considered "noobs" in the first round or two. They work their way through the draw, they aren't ordained further in the draw by the gods. Compared to the OSL, MSL and GSL, MLG's format is very kind to unseeded players. Read this: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/OSL#Tournament_FormatThat's the best SC league in the history of the world and it has a ton of seeding past a ton of rounds for its seeded players. Some of the best players have been unable to advance from its open tournament (which isn't even truly open to everyone -- there is yet another layer of qualification via progamer licensing). It can be really difficult to penetrate but it has worked great for years. No doubt that's it difficult but there comes a time when EVERYONE is placed on the same footing to the top seeds. In all of those tournaments I don't see where a seed is a guaranteed placement of position that the other non-seeds can't equally accomplish. In MLG only the non-seeds can finish 32nd in the final stage, not even those in pool play can finish that low, they are guaranteed minimum 24th. In the OSL once people reach the group stage EVERYONE is on the same footing and they move forward. You don't have the top 4 seeds going directly to the semi-finals like in MLG. Can you tell me where this same footing even occurs in the championship bracket?(The four that make it into pool play isn't everyone on the same footing) Because to my eyes it never exists. The 4 players that make it into pool play are on equal footing as the seeds. Anyone can sign up for the open tournament, make it into pool play, get first in their group, and automatically be in the top 6 of the whole tournament and 3 bo3's away from winning the whole thing.
Again those are just 4 people instead of the entire 16 that move onto the final stage of the tournament. If MLG said that only the top 4 in the open tournament moved onto the Championship Bracket then you'd have a case. Even the OSL through all of it's difficulties have the players start at the same point in each stage. Eventually everyone has to play the same amount of matches in any given stage and that doesn't occur here at all.
|
Well it looks really bad for new players at first glance. But I guess if you are actually very good... You win 6 Bo3s in the 256 bracket. You go 4-0 In the pool play, and 3-0 In the championship. So even if someone like say MVP came, best case is they play 13 Bo3s, which makes it really really easy to be eliminated. One loss and you need to win 15-21... Crazy.
Edit: Although if you do decent several times you'll get a seed so it will get easier if you come to play often.
|
If my math is correct (which it probably isn't) there will be somewhere around 572 bo3's in the tournament.
40 bo3 from pool play (4 groups @ 5 players each)
34 bo3 from the championship bracket(I just looked at motbob's image and counted)
~498 bo3 from the open bracket (not 100% sure on this one due to competition ending with 4 from upper bracket and 12 from the lower bracket.)
if this is true there are ~1,716 possible games (572 bo3's)
Has my brain broken or is there a shred of truth in this?
|
Australia8532 Posts
This may seem like a stupid question; but "pool play starting from day 1"
Does that mean the round robins begin without the seeded players knowing the final member of their group which is later decided from the Open tournament?
edit: forgot the necessary; thank you a ton for this post  Makes a lot more sense right now :D
|
On February 28 2011 07:01 Skillz_Man wrote:
Well it looks really bad for new players at first glance. But I guess if you are actually very good... You win 6 Bo3s in the 256 bracket. You go 4-0 In the pool play, and 3-0 In the championship. So even if someone like say MVP came, best case is they play 13 Bo3s, which makes it really really easy to be eliminated. One loss and you need to win 15-21... Crazy.
Edit: Although if you do decent several times you'll get a seed so it will get easier if you come to play often.
Just because the best of the best can come over and potentially succeed doesn't give the top 16 seeds the right to play by a completely separate set of rules along the entire "tournament".
I'll say it again MLG can have a qualifier open tournament completely separate from the top 16 seeds. But once those players have qualified from the open tournament they need to be placed on the same footing as the top 16 seeds. The fact that the top 16 seeds are never on the same footing as the other 16 "qualifiers" in the final stage of the "tournament" is complete and utter garbage.
|
On February 28 2011 07:12 bkrow wrote:This may seem like a stupid question; but "pool play starting from day 1" Does that mean the round robins begin without the seeded players knowing the final member of their group which is later decided from the Open tournament? edit: forgot the necessary; thank you a ton for this post Makes a lot more sense right now :D
You are correct. That means that once the top 4 from the Open Tournament get placed in groups they'll each have 4 straight Bo3's against those in their new group. Once that is completed the "champions bracket" is made.
|
You're a lifesaver, motbob! Thank you so much for this!
Why must SC2 tournament things be so complicated half of the time? Pretty sure there's a conspiracy.
|
On February 28 2011 07:16 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 07:12 bkrow wrote:This may seem like a stupid question; but "pool play starting from day 1" Does that mean the round robins begin without the seeded players knowing the final member of their group which is later decided from the Open tournament? edit: forgot the necessary; thank you a ton for this post Makes a lot more sense right now :D You are correct. That means that once the top 4 from the Open Tournament get placed in groups they'll each have 4 straight Bo3's against those in their new group. Once that is completed the "champions bracket" is made.
So you're saying after they've grueled there way out of a dark cave of 256 people and making the top4 they now have to play 4 straight games against the best NA/EU players in the world. While they're opponents have been waiting relaxed.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On February 28 2011 07:16 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 07:12 bkrow wrote:This may seem like a stupid question; but "pool play starting from day 1" Does that mean the round robins begin without the seeded players knowing the final member of their group which is later decided from the Open tournament? edit: forgot the necessary; thank you a ton for this post Makes a lot more sense right now :D You are correct. That means that once the top 4 from the Open Tournament get placed in groups they'll each have 4 straight Bo3's against those in their new group. Once that is completed the "champions bracket" is made.
Well that sounds great for us spectators and pretty hard for the player.. but we will see how it is executed
On February 28 2011 07:21 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 07:16 Hrrrrm wrote:On February 28 2011 07:12 bkrow wrote:This may seem like a stupid question; but "pool play starting from day 1" Does that mean the round robins begin without the seeded players knowing the final member of their group which is later decided from the Open tournament? edit: forgot the necessary; thank you a ton for this post Makes a lot more sense right now :D You are correct. That means that once the top 4 from the Open Tournament get placed in groups they'll each have 4 straight Bo3's against those in their new group. Once that is completed the "champions bracket" is made. So you're saying after they've grueled there way out of a dark cave of 256 people and making the top4 they now have to play 4 straight games against the best NA/EU players in the world. While they're opponents have been waiting relaxed.
Well hopefully their opponents have just finished their round robin games; but i is nothing compared to 4 Bo3's in a row..
Also, another question which may be in the post -
Does extended series carry over from the Open tournament to the Championship Bracket?
|
MLG can easily tweak this if they deem it necessary by reducing seeds to 12 and allowing the top 8 from the open brackets into pool play. I for one love the way it looks. Big name matches from day 1, the chance to have an underdog player come through hell to win it and the best of all, no bo1's.
|
Does noone else just think this absurdly complicated / mass game system just ruins the spectator experience. I mean you're only going to be able to commentate like 20 or so bo3's in a weekend with several hundred being played. This system is just needlessly complicated and although it may end up better for the top tier players having a more secure spot but its just a horrible answer for spectators, who are surely surely the people MLG want to impress.
|
On February 28 2011 06:41 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 06:09 hugman wrote:On February 28 2011 05:48 Liquid`Tyler wrote:On February 28 2011 04:59 avilo wrote:On February 27 2011 21:30 fxSolo wrote: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. Which is exactly what I said. It's perfectly acceptable to seed these players in a tournament. What is not acceptable is automatically placing them into the round of 16 and semi finals when there are a vast amount of competitors looking to make their name and fame. You drew an incorrect parallel to try to support your point. They earned their SEEDS. They did not get auto-placed into the semi-finals or ro16 like these tournaments are doing. The seeding in legitimate competitions reward players that have shown they can compete and beat good players already. What it does not do is automatically assume these players will win every game they play for the rest of their lives into the round of 16/semi-finals. And even in your parallel, Tennis uses lots, lots of qualifiers and "wild cards" to allow players that have shown they can compete with the best entry into these events. Players that already have a ranking can get into the grand slams, and players that have none can qualify through a qualifier. But also a wild card can be given to a player that has shown they can compete with the best, etc. In no way do seeds = automatically placeing competitors further in the bracket. What it does is give them an easier bracket, and as a matter of fact, now that I think about it and that you bring it up, and that these tournaments bring it up, Roger Federer, Nadal, etc etc. in fact do a lot of times bash players that can be considered "noobs" in the first round or two. They work their way through the draw, they aren't ordained further in the draw by the gods. Compared to the OSL, MSL and GSL, MLG's format is very kind to unseeded players. Read this: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/OSL#Tournament_Format Come on, that's still not an argument for why it's good. Next MLG you need to lose 5 Bo3 to be eliminated, iNcontrol can only lose 2 (unless he doesn't lose any in the open bracket). I think that disparity is way too big. I didn't say it's an argument for why it's good although it is evidence that could be used for such an argument. Avilo said there aren't any legitimate sports that advance seeds deep into their brackets so I was teaching him about SC leagues, which should make any discussion of sports or other games irrelevant. Yeah, the tournament changes from a double elim bracket to a round robin at the point when the seeds are mixed with the open players. You don't have a point. I'm not sure what you're misunderstanding here.
My issue is with the people who place 5-16th in the Open Bracket. They are put in the Loser's Bracket part of the Championship Bracket and can't afford to lose a single Bo3. I think that all the players who qualify for the Championship Bracket, be that via past MLG events or the Open Bracket, should be on equal footing.
I get the argument that they want to run the Open Bracket concurrently with the Pool Play so that they don't have to spend a day on just the Open Bracket with none of the high seeds playing, but compromising your tournament structure for practicality is unfortunate. I absolutely think that the top 16 from the Open Bracket playing in the Pool Play would make for a much more fair tournament, but it would probably take another day.
|
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.
The reason for the tournament structure is for the viewers. It has nothing to do with protecting certain players. It has to do with making sure there are matches worth watching during the whole tournament. In previous MLGs, the first 2-4 rounds would be almost unwatchable the play was so bad. The pool structure ensures that decent matches are being broadcast from the moment the event starts. motbob summed it up well. It sucks a lot if you're not one the players with points, but it's a great thing if you're a spectator.
I should also add that it's perfectly reasonable to reward players who do well and attend a lot of MLG events by giving them preference. It *gasp* encourages top-end players to attend ALL MLG events rather than just selecting one or two. Incentivizing the top players to attend as many MLG events as they possibly can helps make MLG's events better overall. If someone like, say, Idra was near the 16/17 point cut-off for seeding (not likely, but bear with me) and he had a choice between attending the MLG event and some other tournament, he'd be more likely to choose MLG because he wouldn't want to risk slipping below the seeding threshold. So MLG gets better players at their events.
So it's not fair to players that are more "competitive gamers" than "progamers". But it's a way better spectator experience, and if you want esports to grow, enhancing the spectator experience is the way to make that happen.
|
Kudos to Motbob for making an excellent post that is easy to understand. I finally get it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
