|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
UPDATE for MLG Columbus/Raleigh: click here for updated diagram
There are a couple differences from before. Note that Koreans are now seeded into Pool Play, as described in this thread. Also, note that this fact "bumps out" four qualification spots from the open bracket. At Dallas, the four players who lost in the final round of the Winners' Open Bracket, as well as the eight players who made it to the top eight in the Losers' Open Bracket, advanced to the championship bracket. At Columbus, the top eight in the Loser's Open Bracket will play each other, leaving only four players to advance.
The final, obvious change is that the Championship Bracket changes slightly to accommodate the 6th place player in the pools.
If these changes were confusing, simply compare the two diagrams. Here is the Dallas diagram and here is the Columbus diagram.
OLD POST:
MLG's new format is very different from tournament formats the SC2 community has seen so far. It seems as if every other post in the official MLG format thread is expressing annoyance at the format or confusion over how it works. This is because Slasher's post appears to be written with brevity in mind as opposed to clarity, and written with Pool Play as the focus, when in fact the Championship Losers' Bracket should be the focus.
So in the spirit of saving tournament organizers from themselves, let's walk through the new MLG format, see how it works, and see why it's a good format for spectators (if not so much for players). With pictures!
We start the discussion by explaining the three main elements of the format.
The Open Bracket is a 256 (max) person bracket. Anyone can purchase a player pass and enter this bracket. It is double elimination, which means there is a Winners' Bracket and a Losers' Bracket. After a player loses a match in the Winners' Bracket, he is moved to the Losers' Bracket, and after a player loses a match in the Losers' Bracket, he is eliminated. After four players remain in the Winners' Bracket, competition ends and all four players move into Pool Play. Meanwhile, in the Losers' Bracket, after there are 12 players remaining, competition ends and all twelve move into the Championship Bracket.
The Championship Bracket is a 32 man bracket, and as its name implies, whoever comes out on top of the bracket is the winner of the entire MLG event. This bracket is also double elimination. However, it works very differently from, say, the bracket we saw in MLG Dallas. It has a Winners' Bracket and a Losers' Bracket, but the Winners' Bracket only has four players (determined from Pool Play) and the Losers' Bracket has 28 players seeded in from various parts of Pool Play and the Open Bracket. Understanding who exactly goes where in the Losers' Bracket of the Championship Bracket really requires a diagram, which I'll produce in due time.
Pool Play is a set of four groups, with five people in each group, for a total of 20 players. The groups are made up like so: sixteen players with good results in previous MLGs (based on a points system that you can read about here) are seeded directly into Pool Play. Four players from the Open Bracket also make it into Pool Play, as discussed above. Everyone in pool play plays each other to determine group standings. The #1 player in each group advances to the Championship Bracket Winners' Bracket, for a total of four. The #2, #3, #4, and #5 players in each group are seeded into the Championship Bracket Losers' Bracket.
So we can basically sum up the above by saying that the final destination of the tournament is the Championship Bracket, whether you get to the Championship Bracket from the Loser's Bracket of the Open Bracket, or whether you get there from Pool Play.
Let's break out the pictures now, to make sure everyone is on the same page. To start off: the tournament has a maximum of 272 players, 16 of which are seeded into pool play and 256 of which enter the open bracket.
Pool Play is explained pretty well by the following diagram.
Now, remember that the Loser's Bracket of the Championship Bracket gets players from a variety of different places, and understanding where exactly each player goes can be confusing. So here's a diagram that might help with that. If it's still confusing, read down further until you get to the big diagram that ties everything together.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/zgMP8.png) click the image for a clearer version
And here's a diagram that shows the rest of the Championship Bracket:
And here's the image that ties it all together!
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/PUwhY.png) click the image for a larger version
I want to list some things about the tournament that the above diagrams don't make clear.
First of all, the entire tournament is Bo3, unless an extended series occurs. If the Championship Match isn't an extended series, then the person coming from the Winners' Bracket has to win one Bo3 to win the tournament, while the person coming from the Losers' Bracket has to win two.
After players are eliminated, they will play a few consolation matches to determine their exact 1st-32nd place ranking. This is for the purpose of awarding prize money and Player Points.
Tiebreaking procedures in Pool Play:
Ties will be broken using the following Tiebreakers in this order: Head to Head, Games Won Percentage, and Seed. If there is a tie involving more than two Players and one of the Tiebreakers resolves the tie for a Player(s), but leaves at least two Players tied, resolution of the tie(s) that still exists will start over with Tiebreaker #1. So, basically, tiebreaking games will never be played.
Starcraft 2 Player Passes will be sold online for $70, and sold at Check-In for $80 if there is an open spot in the Bracket.
Now let's talk about why this format is awesome for spectators and not so awesome for players.
The idea behind this format is that MLG can broadcast exciting games between good players at all times. Pool play starts immediately on Day 1, and when pool play winds down, games will be going on in the Championship Bracket, so spectators will be able to be able to see awesome games like Liquid`Tyler vs EGIdra throughout the match, instead of having to suffer through Liquid`Tyler vs LocalKidWithMoneyToBurn for a few hours.
Additionally, this format does a better job of allowing the best players to rise to the top.
Unfortunately, this format has one major downside: it's extraordinarily taxing on non-seeds. A player seeded into Pool Play, if he were to win all of his Bo3s and win the tournament, would play seven Bo3s. However, a player coming up from the Open Bracket might play as many as twenty-one Bo3s. There's obviously a big difference here. 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.
Anyway, I hope this post was informative to you.
|
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^_^.
|
Amazing post, it really explained it well for those who didn't get it. :D
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
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.
|
Wow beautifully done motbob, this answers a lot of questions.
I suppose the 256 man non-seed tourney will be just like Dallas last year? This does suck for a lot of the players who did well last year but didn't make it into the top 16 as they will likely be burnt or sniped by a novice. Hope they give JP some crap about this on Sotg.
|
On February 27 2011 15:17 eNtitY~ wrote:
Amazing post, it really explained it well for those who didn't get it. :D
Didn't understand it till now, but I def agree with the added physical drain this will have on players who come up from the Opens ... man it's going to be crazy ...
|
Wow, well written. I am actually considerably more excited for the format now.
The mild favouring for the seeded players is a downside, but this entire set up seems pretty favourable. MLG is going to be an epic, epic mountain to climb for some players.
|
Great job explaining it. The diagrams made it much simpler to understand and I'm quite excited about this new format!
|
Awesome diagram, very easy to understand! Thanks 
|
Oh man was that helpful. You really broke it down nice and I get it now. I originally didn't since I thought the disparity between the strain on an open bracket player and a seeded player seemed too much and so I thought I misunderstood it.
Not the case. But wow great breakdown, thank you!
|
Very well done.....
.....but if theyre trying to pull the general public into "esports" then why do we have quite possibly the most complicated bracket ever assembled.....lame.
|
how many days is mlg? i mean a guy in the final with possibly 50+ games played during 2-3 days. he's gonna be so tired that he's lost before he even sits down to play.
And this is all tournament games where you need 100% focus, not churning out games on the ladder.
|
You should get paid from MLG for this.
|
What. The. ?.
I think I understand it, but it seems insanely complicated.
How long does it take to play this tournament?
About how many games total would comprise the tournament?
How the hell do they schedule and run this thing?
Why are you doing MLG's job for them?
|
United States338 Posts
21 bo3s... I want to see it happen, talk about an amazing story
|
wow i actually understand wat MLG format is thanks for all the diagrams they really help
|
Wow, nicely done. Still cant believe they can do this in just a weekend.
|
I found this far more helpful than the official thread thanks bob
|
wow i actually understand wat MLG format is thanks for all the diagrams they really help
|
On February 27 2011 15:29 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
I found this far more helpful than the official thread thanks bob
Same, I actually understand it now. Thank you so much!
|
Minor mistake: In your diagram you have Pool A 5th-2nd place all going down into the same "G" line, similar for the other Pools. Instead they are alternated to different lines to reduce the number of rematches.
|
This is brilliant. I understood it with one read. Hat's off to you sir!
|
I didnt think tournament formats could get any more confusing than GSL. I perfectly understand GSL format after trying to learn it for 2-3days. But the diagrams you provided, compared to the GSL ones, make me not even have faith in trying to learn it.
Also from what I understand. Losing in the Open Bracket and then making the top 12 in the loser's bracket is the fastest way into the Championship Bracket. Where as if you actually win all your games you have to then go through Pool Play just for a chance to get into the Championship Bracket. I don't see a reason to win the Open Bracket, more like throw a game near the end of the winner's bracket and then win the loser's bracket. Am I not understanding something as to why theres a reason to win?
|
On February 27 2011 15:31 Zooper31 wrote:
I didnt think tournament formats could get any more confusing than GSL. I perfectly understand GSL format after trying to learn it for 2-3days. But the diagrams you provided, compared to the GSL ones, make me not even have faith in trying to learn it.
Also from what I understand. Losing in the Open Bracket and then making the top 12 in the loser's bracket is the fastest way into the Championship Bracket. Where as if you actually win all your games you have to then go through Pool Play just for a chance to get into the Championship Bracket. I don't see a reason to win the Open Bracket, more like throw a game near the end of the winner's bracket and then win the loser's bracket. Am I not understanding something as to why theres a reason to win?
Look at the Pool Play part of the diagram. Tell me if you come from Open and get say 3rd in the Pool, where do you go?
|
Makes a lot more sense now. 21 Bo3s, even if it is unlikely, is pretty crazy for a 2day tourny. I feel for the next Select.
|
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.
|
On February 27 2011 15:33 KillerDucky wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 15:31 Zooper31 wrote:
I didnt think tournament formats could get any more confusing than GSL. I perfectly understand GSL format after trying to learn it for 2-3days. But the diagrams you provided, compared to the GSL ones, make me not even have faith in trying to learn it.
Also from what I understand. Losing in the Open Bracket and then making the top 12 in the loser's bracket is the fastest way into the Championship Bracket. Where as if you actually win all your games you have to then go through Pool Play just for a chance to get into the Championship Bracket. I don't see a reason to win the Open Bracket, more like throw a game near the end of the winner's bracket and then win the loser's bracket. Am I not understanding something as to why theres a reason to win? Look at the Pool Play part of the diagram. Tell me if you come from Open and get say 3rd in the Pool, where do you go?
Into the loser's bracket of the Championship Bracket? Again, would've been much faster just losing from the get go in the Open Bracket to get to the same spot.
|
|
|
Possibility of twenty-one BO3's? That's unreal. At the moment it makes sense in the interest of entertainment that the "high-profile" players naturally get seeded higher in the tournament but there must be a way to give the dark-horses a better chance then the possibility of 21 BO3's.
|
Thanks for the translation motbob. MLG's philosophy is a little different, but I guess it just sacrifices ease of understanding (alleviated by posts like this) for the benefits mentioned.
|
First the GSL and now MLG, tournaments are starting to have some crazy ass brackets.
|
Someone here is deserving of a quality post star. Thanks for the flow chart, without that I probably would've just watched the tournament until I figured out what was going on. Though personally I still favor the simplicity of a double-elim format.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On February 27 2011 15:37 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 15:33 KillerDucky wrote:On February 27 2011 15:31 Zooper31 wrote:
I didnt think tournament formats could get any more confusing than GSL. I perfectly understand GSL format after trying to learn it for 2-3days. But the diagrams you provided, compared to the GSL ones, make me not even have faith in trying to learn it.
Also from what I understand. Losing in the Open Bracket and then making the top 12 in the loser's bracket is the fastest way into the Championship Bracket. Where as if you actually win all your games you have to then go through Pool Play just for a chance to get into the Championship Bracket. I don't see a reason to win the Open Bracket, more like throw a game near the end of the winner's bracket and then win the loser's bracket. Am I not understanding something as to why theres a reason to win? Look at the Pool Play part of the diagram. Tell me if you come from Open and get say 3rd in the Pool, where do you go? Into the loser's bracket of the Championship Bracket? Again, would've been much faster just losing from the get go in the Open Bracket to get to the same spot.
Not really. If you were to lose right away, like in the Ro256, and work your way through the losers' bracket and then the Championship bracket, you'd play a maximum of 21 matches.
If you were to just win out, you'd make it into pool play, and not only would you have the chance to win your group and be on the fast track to the finals, but you'd play a maximum of 20 matches even if you lost to everyone. So winning out in the Open Bracket is pretty much always ideal.
|
Bob one thing I want to know is the part whre you said
If the Championship Match isn't an extended series, then the person coming from the Winners' Bracket has to win one Bo3 to win the tournament, while the person coming from the Losers' Bracket has to win two.
What if it IS an extended series will it just be the extended series for the championship? Because I thought that was one of the weaker parts of the format in the past.
|
I guess it's okay. Would still like to see the grand finals being bo5 atleast.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On February 27 2011 15:41 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Bob one thing I want to know is the part whre you said Show nested quote +If the Championship Match isn't an extended series, then the person coming from the Winners' Bracket has to win one Bo3 to win the tournament, while the person coming from the Losers' Bracket has to win two. What if it IS an extended series will it just be the extended series for the championship? Because I thought that was one of the weaker parts of the format in the past.
Yeah, it's just an extended series.
|
Truly a great write up and explanation. Thanks.
|
very informative. thanks for this
|
Anyone know how many points each place gets?
|
Canada25 Posts
I had gone to the MLG site before this and seen their version of the diagram to explain this. I took me a while to figure it out but eventually I did. Just now I saw your diagram, took about ten seconds to understand it. This diagram is inifitely better than theirs.
Thank you for utilizing your organizational skills to our benefit.
|
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.
|
Is it me, or does this tournament format exacerbate how ludicrous extended series really is. Not to bring up a debate, but I get the feeling that clawing through the losers bracket will require playing A LOT of games.
|
need a term for ppl coming from the open tourney to win it
something like "royalroader" for the OSL
|
guess they're saying it pays to be the best, or at least have proven yourself already
|
On February 27 2011 16:45 dtz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
lol
It's not that, it's the disparity of "seeds" advantage and the possibility of any korean attending. I would put any random GSL A/S and even some B players in the mix with the current MLG top 16.
Automatically place top 32
Play a fraction of the games of your opponents (saving BOs)
etc etc
if you are seeded you have much better EV than any unseeded player by a lot even if they are better than you. It's comparable to GSL A/S class in some ways in that it will create a stable of "MLG seeded" players. The difference is they get an actual advantage when it comes game time.
The schedule is if I remember right, 12:30 AM on friday night it ends. Begins at 8-9AM the next day. The only problem I see is the exhaustion factor, and the automatic top 32 points for seeded players. Finals being bo3 .. is lol
|
You sir are amazing, very well done in the explanation.
|
Much clearer how it all works now. Thanks motbob
|
Damn, that's even more confusing than GSL! Thanks for the graphs.
|
Fan-fucking-tastic explanation. I got it all in the first read, whereas before I was just like "Whatever, fuck it, I'll figure it out when the tournament starts"
It's definitely going to be tiring for any player who enters the worst case scenario. That would be a truly epic run though, SeleCt styles.
|
On February 27 2011 16:46 PrideNeverDie wrote:
need a term for ppl coming from the open tourney to win it
something like "royalroader" for the OSL
I would call it an upset.
I like the system. Thanks to MLGs continuency they can allow seeds and I think that's very good for eliminating much of the random luck that exists in nearly all other sc2-tournaments. Many really good matches to view for us spectators, I gues the problem (lol) comes down to select who to broadcast: successful, popular or known players. I feel sorry for the '2nd select' but compared to the upsides of this, I as a spectator feel it worth it.
|
Awesome, thanks Motbob. Makes perfect sense now. The MLG announcement was confusing.
|
Thank you very much for this amazing post, good sir.
I wont feel stupid now when watching mlg this year.
|
Pretty much clarified my entire confusion. TY for this thread.
|
To all those saying that this is the best for the spectators, I ask you: Do you remember Paremedico? Do you remember Agh?
|
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?
|
On February 27 2011 18:05 MythicalMage wrote:
To all those saying that this is the best for the spectators, I ask you: Do you remember Paremedico? Do you remember Agh?
I'd still rather watch Top 16 Pool play instead of pro vs no-names
|
Nice thread. Spotlight please.
|
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. It's kind of ridiculous when you compare it to any other sport/competitive event. "Hey, I made the playoffs last year, so yep, I'm in"
I find this particularly disturbing with the NASL - where from what I gather, most contestants will be handpicked to begin with.
If a player is good enough to compete in a 'worldwide' tournament - he/she should earn their way into that position.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
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?
Let me give you some examples of tournaments that seed a certain number of players high in the brackets.
- MSL seeds 8 players into the main tournament. Everyone else has to pass prelims and then a secondary round.
- OSL seeds 4 players into the main tournament and 12 into the secondary tournament. Everyone else has to pass through prelims.
- TSL2 seeded 3 players directly into the main tournament, while everyone else had to play through grueling prelims.
You somehow think that MLG seeding "celebrity players" in the tournament is wrong. You say protecting "big name" players is wrong. Well, those players got big names because they performed in MLG tournaments last year and got player points. MLG isn't protecting these guys because they have a high "reality star rating" (lol).
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 know NFL give division leaders a bye in the playoffs...
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
I think I can hear Occam turning in his grave.
|
Awesome, it's much more clearer now!
|
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.
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.
|
On February 28 2011 04:20 Agh wrote:
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.
They will be mixing it up. The players who finished 2-5 in a group will be in different parts of the bracket.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
OK, I fixed the images so Group A players don't all play each other.
|
On February 28 2011 04:59 avilo wrote:
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.[/QUOTE]
|
On February 28 2011 04:59 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Uh did you read Motbob's response to you? He sort of covered this, the players who get seeded get seeded because they kicked ass last year at MLG, thus they earned it.
|
On February 28 2011 05:39 motbob wrote:
OK, I fixed the images so Group A players don't all play each other.
Just one more thing that needs fixing and that's the winner's bracket. Group A 1st plays Group D 1st and Group C 1st plays Group B 1st.
|
On February 28 2011 05:41 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 04:59 avilo wrote:
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.
Your problem with this format is beside the point because MLG still needs to fit this event within 3 days and ahem well players dont show up on time for day 1 ever. So they cannot go for a format that takes excess amounts of time. So in order to still fit the event within 3 days you have the current seeding of layers into the ro16 etc etc. The new format is designed to show you top level games on the stream from the start of the event until the end. Is it harder for players who are in the open bracket? Yes, the only way to fix that is to run the open bracket on a different weekend altogether or online and that kills the entire point of it being a live event.
MLG is working within a rather strict time frame so allowances had to be made. That being said the new format is much much better than the previous one.
|
great break down of how it works, I honestly couldnt care what so ever about the system because of how it was explained but this did the trick. much appreciated.
|
8748 Posts
On February 28 2011 04:59 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +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
That'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.
|
|
|
Thanks for posting this, cleared up the format for me a lot.
|
Wow seriously detailed and nice visual aids ^^ Thanks!
|
would love to see the hour by hour match schedule for this. if it's as jam packed as it seems to be, how would they deal with something as guaranteed as bnet going down or the internets dying? Cause u know it will.
|
|
|
On February 28 2011 05:48 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
So the finals and semis are also going to be BO3 then?
|
any chance you can write a post like that on how to find the vods?
it will probably be even longer...
|
On February 28 2011 05:48 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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
|
8748 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.
|
8748 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
|
I understand it better now. Unfortunately it is still as horrific a system as I first thought.
|
On February 28 2011 07:46 GeorgeForeman wrote:Show nested quote +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.
There is a better way for MLG to accomplish what it's doing(Protecting Top 16 Seeds) and keep it 100% fair for everyone especially the Open players.
-Top 16 Seeds get placed into pool play and through those results get reseeded 1-16(Based on match record and games for/against, tiebreakers if necessary). The seeds will have to prove themselves from the get go and suffer something from playing badly. Example 1 seed(In groups) potentially getting 16 seed(In Championship Bracket).
-256 Double Elimination Open Tournament goes as planned and played through. Top 16 get seeded 17-32. This can be lessened to 128 if time is an issue.
-Final Stage Ro32 Double Elimination Championship Bracket. Top Pool Play Seeds 1-16 and Open Tournament Seeds 17-32 get positioned. The top pool player(Seed 1) plays the worst qualified Open player(Seed 32). The worst pool player(Seed 16) plays the best qualified Open player(Seed 17).
No Extended Series non-sense. No guaranteed placement in the final stage(Currently Top 16 seeds can place no lower than 24th). Everybody is on equal footing in the final stage and the seeded players have to show up and perform against EVERYONE. More importantly in the final stage everyone has the potential to play the exact same amount of games to win the entire thing.
This would honestly be the ideal setup if MLG wanted to protect their top seeds, bypass early round nub stomps, and still give the best players (Top 16 seeds and Top 16 Open Qualifiers) an equal chance at the championship. I just don't know how MLG could have screwed this up so badly. I can only hope they see there is a better way.
|
This seems more complicated then GSL >,>
|
My 2 cents: I don't like the new format, not because the seeded players didn't earn some kind of advantage, but for a combination of things that bother me a bit.
The first being... did anyone know that last season's results would have any bearing on the 2011 season? I went to all three of the events and never heard a whisper about this kind of benefit.
The second being, new challengers are going to be paying $70 entry fee AND airfare and hotels to enter into an automatic disadvantage, just because they didn't play last year. I don't know about you, but even if I took a game off drewbie and Machine on the ladder here and there, that wouldn't be worth it for me. Not to mention the previously mentioned European players who might have just built up the courage to fly over and give it a shot.
Third: this new format takes away a huge part of the excitement for me. Agh beating Tyler at MLG Raleigh blew my mind, that won't be happening here, at least not in the same capacity. SephirothX might make it to pool play and topple a big name or two, but if he wins the open bracket first it won't be quite as surprising. I honestly feel that double elimination bo3's were enough protection for the validity of having the better player advance. The aspect of having more exciting games early in the weekend doesn't mean much to me, when the open bracket winners could very well be physically exhausted by Day 3. Besides, if those players are truly worthy of the championship bracket, they would have earned their spot once again.
I dunno, those are just the biggest things that are bothering me. Double elimination bo3 tourneys like we saw last season are the perfect way to run it, in my opinion, with potentially a bo5 for the winner's/loser's/grand finals for excitement's sake.
Also, the field has probably changed quite a bit since November 4th, I really think the players should have to start from square 1. Some players didn't practice very much since November, and others have come from nowhere or practiced their asses off the improve, and I want to see it in action in an equal setting.
|
On February 28 2011 08:19 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 07:46 GeorgeForeman wrote: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. There is a better way for MLG to accomplish what it's doing(Protecting Top 16 Seeds) and keep it 100% fair for everyone especially the Open players. -Top 16 Seeds get placed into pool play and through those results get reseeded 1-16(Based on match record and games for/against, tiebreakers if necessary). The seeds will have to prove themselves from the get go and suffer something from playing badly. Example 1 seed(In groups) potentially getting 16 seed(In Championship Bracket). -256 Double Elimination Open Tournament goes as planned and played through. Top 16 get seeded 17-32. This can be lessened to 128 if time is an issue. -Final Stage Ro32 Double Elimination Championship Bracket. Top Pool Play Seeds 1-16 and Open Tournament Seeds 17-32 get positioned. The top pool player(Seed 1) plays the worst qualified Open player(Seed 32). The worst pool player(Seed 16) plays the best qualified Open player(Seed 17). No Extended Series non-sense. No guaranteed placement in the final stage(Currently Top 16 seeds can place no lower than 24th). Everybody is on equal footing in the final stage and the seeded players have to show up and perform against EVERYONE. More importantly in the final stage everyone has the potential to play the exact same amount of games to win the entire thing. This would honestly be the ideal setup if MLG wanted to protect their top seeds, bypass early round nub stomps, and still give the best players (Top 16 seeds and Top 16 Open Qualifiers) an equal chance at the championship. I just don't know how MLG could have screwed this up so badly. I can only hope they see there is a better way.
Letting all the 16 seeded players play a group stage they're guaranteed to advance from just for seeding purposes seems excessive and somewhat pointless.
|
It seems like the open bracket and the group stages form the seeding for 4 stepladder tournaments in the loser's bracket that are then combined near the end, but still keeps the same feel. Is that a reasonable way of describing it?
|
On February 28 2011 08:53 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 08:19 Hrrrrm wrote:On February 28 2011 07:46 GeorgeForeman wrote: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. There is a better way for MLG to accomplish what it's doing(Protecting Top 16 Seeds) and keep it 100% fair for everyone especially the Open players. -Top 16 Seeds get placed into pool play and through those results get reseeded 1-16(Based on match record and games for/against, tiebreakers if necessary). The seeds will have to prove themselves from the get go and suffer something from playing badly. Example 1 seed(In groups) potentially getting 16 seed(In Championship Bracket). -256 Double Elimination Open Tournament goes as planned and played through. Top 16 get seeded 17-32. This can be lessened to 128 if time is an issue. -Final Stage Ro32 Double Elimination Championship Bracket. Top Pool Play Seeds 1-16 and Open Tournament Seeds 17-32 get positioned. The top pool player(Seed 1) plays the worst qualified Open player(Seed 32). The worst pool player(Seed 16) plays the best qualified Open player(Seed 17). No Extended Series non-sense. No guaranteed placement in the final stage(Currently Top 16 seeds can place no lower than 24th). Everybody is on equal footing in the final stage and the seeded players have to show up and perform against EVERYONE. More importantly in the final stage everyone has the potential to play the exact same amount of games to win the entire thing. This would honestly be the ideal setup if MLG wanted to protect their top seeds, bypass early round nub stomps, and still give the best players (Top 16 seeds and Top 16 Open Qualifiers) an equal chance at the championship. I just don't know how MLG could have screwed this up so badly. I can only hope they see there is a better way. Letting all the 16 seeded players play a group stage they're guaranteed to advance from just for seeding purposes seems excessive and somewhat pointless.
I wouldn't say it's either. The seeds they currently have are based on games they played 3+ months ago. Patches have come and gone, new maps will be implemented, some players have improved others haven't. So group play for seeding at the start of the tournament doesn't seem excessive or pointless for the top 16 seeds. Especially when they are separated from the majority of the tournament population. They should still have to prove themselves at the very least against one another.
|
which is exactly what they do. The group seeding is unnecessarily repetitive.
|
Very complicated, very confusing, but seemingly very effective for the viewers.
What software did you use to make the awesome diagram?
|
It would make for a great story to have someone from open get to the top. Select did something similar with his run in mlg.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On February 28 2011 12:17 Froadac wrote:
Very complicated, very confusing, but seemingly very effective for the viewers.
What software did you use to make the awesome diagram?
Indesign. I actually had never used the program before. It was pretty easy, if fairly time-consuming.
|
On February 28 2011 08:19 Hrrrrm wrote:
There is a better way for MLG to accomplish what it's doing(Protecting Top 16 Seeds) and keep it 100% fair for everyone especially the Open players.
Sure, there are other ways to do it and they may lead to some marginal improvements. But I think this is a decent format if your priority is ensuring meaningful games between top-teir players from the minute the tournament starts to the end.
What you proposed is basically the same thing with some window dressing. Particularly, rather than have how someone does in the Open Bracket matter, you just re-seed everyone into a 32-player bracket. This ignores whether someone was in the winners bracket or losers bracket or whatever in the Open.
Either way, you can mess around with the details all you want and the result will still be the same. It will be significantly more difficult for non-seeded players to get into the money and/or win, and there should be a good viewing experience from the perspective of the fan.
|
On February 28 2011 12:49 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 12:17 Froadac wrote:
Very complicated, very confusing, but seemingly very effective for the viewers.
What software did you use to make the awesome diagram? Indesign. I actually had never used the program before. It was pretty easy, if fairly time-consuming.
Illustrator is the best for making diagrams and graphics of that nature, but Indesign is far easier to use (it's basically a souped up version of power point)
|
Really sad that Esports in NA has become just like Hollywood where you get a huge advantage being a "star" and huge disadvantage for being a joe with more talent.
User was banned for this post.
|
I hope a non-seeded player goes all the way, just for the lulz.
|
I think now the open bracket will mainly be used to get u points so u will be seeded. Seems pretty impossible to win from the open bracket
|
Wow, those graphics help ALOT. I was super confused before and am finally starting to get it.
|
On February 28 2011 13:07 NearPerfection wrote:
Really sad that Esports in NA has become just like Hollywood where you get a huge advantage being a "star" and huge disadvantage for being a joe with more talent.
And how did they become a star? By placing well in past events to gain enough points for there current placing. The top16 earned there spots.
|
On February 28 2011 13:07 NearPerfection wrote:
Really sad that Esports in NA has become just like Hollywood where you get a huge advantage being a "star" and huge disadvantage for being a joe with more talent.
You do understand the top 16 seeds earned them by performing well in past MLGs right? Its not a popularity contest, its people who have done well at MLG and only MLG, no other tournaments or achievements.
|
If you look at the open tournament as a "qualifier" round, then it makes sense and not very unfair.
Take UEFA Champions League as an example, we have top 3 teams from top European countries (England, Italy, Spain, France and Germany and maybe more) directly seeded into group stage while smaller team from smaller country have to go through qualifying rounds. I think this is quite the same, but even loser get second chance to redeem themselves in loser brackets.
|
I like the MLG format. It is hard to get in, but easy to stay in. It is like having a month of GSL code A, and Code S in three days (plus qualification for code A, open tournament). And you can count the matches during the first few rounds of the Championship Losers bracket your up/down matches. It will be best of open players("code A") vs worst of seeded players ("code S"). The up side is that the Code A qualifiers (top 16 of open bracket) don't have to wait an entire season to play in code S. So what if the top 4 of the groups stages gets seated into the Championship Winners Semis, they earned it. The points system should create the up/down scenario I talked about.
Sidebar: For those of you that do not understand the MLG points system, it will be like the Pro-Tennis points system after this year is over. You have to defend or better the points you earned in the specific tournaments that were held in the previous year. (it won't be venue that determines analogous events between the two years, but the order the tournament was played). Only the first tournament this year will use last years points. Players will acquire points throughout this year, and defend or better those points next year. So next year if you win a tournament that you did not enter this year, you will gain a maximum amount of points. If you win say the third event this year and then next year as well, you will not gain points, but you will not lose any points either.
Edit: I forgot to mention that code A qualifiers and and code A itself is single elimination, while MLG allows for a person to lose a "qualifier" (open tournament round) and still get to play in Championship bracket.
|
On February 28 2011 13:07 NearPerfection wrote:
Really sad that Esports in NA has become just like Hollywood where you get a huge advantage being a "star" and huge disadvantage for being a joe with more talent.
User was banned for this post.
Playing 23 best of 3 if you're not in one of the 16 players seeded is insane. I agree with perfect here. I can understand for later MLG's or at least the national one but yea... :\
|
Soooo, it;s really fucking hard for an unseeded player to win a tournament even if he is the most skilled player in the entire tournament and has more chances to be cheesed out if he isn't near perfctly consistent AAAAND we get to see the least number of games from the best seeded and most well known players?
Why doesn't this format suck, again?
|
I..I thought you guys enjoyed my games ;_;
|
On February 28 2011 14:09 Veldril wrote:
If you look at the open tournament as a "qualifier" round, then it makes sense and not very unfair.
Take UEFA Champions League as an example, we have top 3 teams from top European countries (England, Italy, Spain, France and Germany and maybe more) directly seeded into group stage while smaller team from smaller country have to go through qualifying rounds. I think this is quite the same, but even loser get second chance to redeem themselves in loser brackets. It's funny that you mention this, because the difference between the format you're mentioning and MLG is the key point of contention for most of the detractors.
CL has seeds, but then they're seeded into their groups along with everyone else who qualified. If you check the MLG format again, you'll see that the top seeds coming out of the group stage are not in the Ro16 as the CL teams are - they're directly entered into the quarter and semi-finals.
The way the seeded players can skip rounds via their pool placement (without having to worry about falling out of the tournament completely, btw) is unfair at best, and nonsensical at worst.
The huge downside - aside from this perceived unfairness - being that the spectators actually get to see fewer games with the best players. >_>
I seriously think people would have a lot less problem with the format if the Championship Bracket were a regular 32-man single/double elimination bracket, with 16 players who earned their seeded spots in previous tournaments, and 16 players who earned their spot in the open tournament.
|
On February 28 2011 15:03 Ziggitz wrote:
Soooo, it;s really fucking hard for an unseeded player to win a tournament even if he is the most skilled player in the entire tournament and has more chances to be cheesed out if he isn't near perfctly consistent AAAAND we get to see the least number of games from the best seeded and most well known players?
Why doesn't this format suck, again?
1.only the good players will make it out of the open bracket
2. We see more games from the "best seeded" and well known players.
3. It doesn't, You just need to understand it.
|
Good write up, made it clear, thanks
|
I just hope this doesn't discourage Europeans and Koreans of going there to compete.
|
Awesome write-up, as usual, motbob.
Actually, kind of surprised this wasn't spotlighted, honestly - but I guess there was already an MLG spotlight recently so they might not want to overMLG people with the format stuff.
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but in regards to the issue of it being "too tough" for some random open player to win the tournament...
Wouldn't doing really well in the open and subsequent pool play earn this player a seed in later MLGs? So in one aspect, the 256 open tournament could be seen as earning your stripes for entrance to later MLGs, while the seeded players are the ones "truly" competing for the current MLG?
|
Thanks motbob, explained it perfectly to me
|
Oooooooooooooooooooooh sweet, i kinda like this better.
|
I think any random player enrolled in the MLG bracket deserves to play. You never know there could be some unseen talent that overtakes the tournament and makes a splash on the SC2 scene.
|
Just wanted to say thanks a lot this helped me a lot.Diagrams and explanation took a lot of time sure thanks for your hard work.
It seems like a decent system, but players are going to need a lot of stamina and the bo3 finals I don't really like but dont know how to fix it.
|
On March 01 2011 02:18 Nick_54 wrote:
Just wanted to say thanks a lot this helped me a lot.Diagrams and explanation took a lot of time sure thanks for your hard work.
It seems like a decent system, but players are going to need a lot of stamina and the bo3 finals I don't really like but dont know how to fix it.
Ya BO3 Finals? BO5 or BO7 shows more of the finalists real skill in 1v1. Should definitely be changed.
|
I'll be interested to see what seeding points a player earns for each round - that will be key to seeing if someone can be seeded highly in the future not through a couple of hero performances but showing consistency in the open tournament and championship playoff/losers brackets.
|
On February 28 2011 17:54 Seronei wrote:
I just hope this doesn't discourage Europeans and Koreans of going there to compete.
The prize pool for a lot of them wouldn't of been worth it. This tournament format was practically the nail in the coffin for their participation. I wouldn't be surprised if the only non-NA players that we see are those that are in the Top 16 seed and right now it's only Socke.
|
On February 28 2011 16:51 Bobster wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 14:09 Veldril wrote:
If you look at the open tournament as a "qualifier" round, then it makes sense and not very unfair.
Take UEFA Champions League as an example, we have top 3 teams from top European countries (England, Italy, Spain, France and Germany and maybe more) directly seeded into group stage while smaller team from smaller country have to go through qualifying rounds. I think this is quite the same, but even loser get second chance to redeem themselves in loser brackets. It's funny that you mention this, because the difference between the format you're mentioning and MLG is the key point of contention for most of the detractors. CL has seeds, but then they're seeded into their groups along with everyone else who qualified. If you check the MLG format again, you'll see that the top seeds coming out of the group stage are not in the Ro16 as the CL teams are - they're directly entered into the quarter and semi-finals. The way the seeded players can skip rounds via their pool placement (without having to worry about falling out of the tournament completely, btw) is unfair at best, and nonsensical at worst. The huge downside - aside from this perceived unfairness - being that the spectators actually get to see fewer games with the best players. >_> I seriously think people would have a lot less problem with the format if the Championship Bracket were a regular 32-man single/double elimination bracket, with 16 players who earned their seeded spots in previous tournaments, and 16 players who earned their spot in the open tournament.
But not every game is casted. Sure, the best players are playing fewer games, but by spreading them out, it's getting more interesting games to the viewers because they aren't all happening at the same time.
Also, isn't the open qualifier on the first day, and then the brackets start on the next day? A night of rest is pretty significant. No matter what, people coming from an open qualifier to blast through an entire tournament in a single weekend are GOING to be playing a lot of games - at least this way, if they do really well in the tournament, they'll have a good shot at picking up a seeded spot in the future.
|
Very simple read. Thanks for the clarification!
|
I think this format's pretty great. It gives the unseeded players (be it new players to MLG or just not so lucky ones from previous MLG) extra motivation to get top 16 seed. This of course goes out to the seeded players too. They gotta work hard to keep their seed. Of course, a lot of the work is done for them already, but they earned it from previous seasons :D
This is also great chance for unseeded players to really battle it out. They don't have to face the seeded players until later on. I'm sure a lot of the players don't wanna see seeded players knock each other out so early in the tournament.
Thanks for the explanation and diagram !
|
So at most a "seed" is a seed into the Ro32 when the tournament has 256 people total? That doesn't seem like a big deal. And this whole system seems a little less stupid. I guess the proper explanation helps a lot, I had absolutely no idea when reading the original post.
|
Looks a bit like dreamhacks format, but with doubble elimination.
|
LOL at "LocalKidWithMoneyToBurn" <------ i hope he wins
|
Nice write-up, makes it alot clearer!
|
so basically... if you sign up as a new player... you'll be player a SHITLOAD of starcraft over 1 weekend.... yes?
and it's against increasingly difficult players (of which, have played increasingly less games than you, sometimes)
|
Why their format doesn't work:
Loser has to win two best of series while the winner only has to win one.
|
Great write up. Format finally make sense. :D
I have to say now that I understand it, I like it. If you take the Bo3 series (vs Bo1) + the fact that it isn't single elimination should give the better player a great chance to advance and earn points. I just wish the finals were a best of 5.
|
On March 01 2011 10:06 stevarius wrote:
Why their format doesn't work:
Loser has to win two best of series while the winner only has to win one.
Only the better player(Better record) will make it out,
|
I remember playing in a 256 team softball tournament in Las Vegas. We lost our first game and played 11 straight games before losing. We played all night, watched the sunset, then the sunrise, without leaving the dugout... It was an amazing and grueling experience.
I envy the Loser's Bracket players in MLG: some of them will get the opportunity to grind it out match after match... many of them are going to come out much stronger players, and it will be an experience they won't forget.
|
I really Like this new System MLG is doing for this season. Hopefully its more entertaining to watch than last year.
|
On March 01 2011 07:48 Keitzer wrote:
so basically... if you sign up as a new player... you'll be player a SHITLOAD of starcraft over 1 weekend.... yes?
and it's against increasingly difficult players (of which, have played increasingly less games than you, sometimes)
you mean "you'll be playing* a shitload of sc?" then no, the writeup states somewhere in there that if you are a new player and you lose your first two sets you will be eliminated.. thanks for the 70 bucks, later. though, i do think you can spectate after you get knocked out.. i was thinking of going this year until i found out about this new system.. basically what it is: if you werent here last year or didnt do good last year, you must do very very well in a 256 man tourney before you get to compete with the pros...
i love how on basically the front page of mlg dallas it says:
Think you've got what it takes? Test your skills against the best players in the world! Come out in person and play the pros; it's the best chance you'll ever have to hone your skills and make a name for yourself.
but you won't get to play the pros.. not unless ur a god..
my bet is that the winner WILL come from the Open bracket... i hope the top of the winners bracket just stomp everyone in pool play... i mean really... ive seen ppl play the 'seniority' card but COME ON.. whatever happened to everyone getting an even playing field? its really because MLG wants to protect their top players because fans love to see top players and follow them.. i can understand that.. there are invitationals for that... this hybrid open tourney/ invitational tourney just DOESNT WORK....
21 bo3's is really discouraging to any new players wanting to go... also, i hope you guys realize that 70 dollar entry fee x 256 more pays for the entire cash pool of the sc2 tourney AND THEN SOME.. not to mention the money theyre getting from specs... they should be making money from sponsors and actually paying players for performing... i mean hell, we could make our own tourney with same fee and a higher prize pool... ill call is manneredGOSU's gaming league or something... /Lulface
all of this really leads me to believe MLG is a big joke.. i cant see myself going there and seeing all these poor kids who are basically just gambling (because thats what its called when the prize pool doesnt exceed the entry fee). all of this just makes me look at it as "put your 70 in the pot if you think you can win 21 bo3s in a row LOL, else your money is MEH MONEYYYY!!" i would make that bet against anyone anyday.
ppl like the guy i quoted are STILL not understanding that you can play 2 sets and leave feeling bad cause you wasted ur moms money on a hopeless dream lol... and the reason why is because mlg does a horrible job of giving you information about the tournament itself.. no where on the mlg page could i find out about how the tournament works or how many matches can you lose before your out..
so to all of you thinking this will be an ENDURANCE race and a plethora of sc matches against pros awaiting you come april 1st, just know that wont be the case for most players. rather, it will be another tourney vs some random scrub you could play online for free..
im high masters level and i still feel like i could get out in 2 sets im sure everyone there will be on the competitive level and i really dont wanna go home after 2 sets and beat myself up about it.. i wanna have fun.. i wanna play matches... I .. WANT .. BALANCE!
THINK ABOUT IT
|
279 Posts
On March 03 2011 19:03 HyAjO wrote:
21 bo3's is really discouraging to any new players wanting to go... also, i hope you guys realize that 70 dollar entry fee x 256 more pays for the entire cash pool of the sc2 tourney AND THEN SOME.. not to mention the money theyre getting from specs... they should be making money from sponsors and actually paying players for performing... i mean hell, we could make our own tourney with same fee and a higher prize pool... ill call is manneredGOSU's gaming league or something... /Lulface
all of this really leads me to believe MLG is a big joke.. i cant see myself going there and seeing all these poor kids who are basically just gambling (because thats what its called when the prize pool doesnt exceed the entry fee). all of this just makes me look at it as "put your 70 in the pot if you think you can win 21 bo3s in a row LOL, else your money is MEH MONEYYYY!!" i would make that bet against anyone anyday.
I have no problem with criticisms or even random troll flames, but I do have a problem with ignorance.
Try this: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=legal definition of gambling - One of the legal considerations in operating a tournament is that you have to put the prize money up before you announce the tournament. As in, the cash has to be in the bank and ready to send to the winners. Counting on the entry fees to cover the pot (as opposed to recoup the costs) is one of the definitions of gambling. If a tournament's events had a sliding prize pool based on participation (i.e. was directly correlated such that if 10 people signed up at 100 bucks each, the prize pool = 1000, if 12 ppl, 1200, or 50, 5000), then it would be defined as gambling. You are right that if YOU go into this thinking I'll pay 70 and maybe get 5000 out, then you're gambling. But that's not how the tournament is set up as a competition of skill--you pay 70 bucks to participate and play matches in an organized tournament. You don't pay 70 bucks to have watch a little ball float through the air and pop out of a chute to tell you if you won.
Trying to HELP cover costs is what most tournament organizers do with entry fees. But the reality is, entry fees never really even scratch the surface on costs. And if you look at entry fees compared to the total season purse (6 events, including the National Championship), the season purse is A LOT more than all the entry fees for the season. What entry fees really are is a way to make sure that you (the person who registers for the tournament) have skin in the game and are going to show up. If we set a tournament up for 272 players, and then 150 show up, that's really not so good for us... or the sport as a whole. If you think running a tournament, especially a live event on the scale of MLG just costs us prize money, you haven't thought this through. It costs us more than the prize money just to load up and ship around the gear that it takes to run the tournament all year long.
Lastly and most importantly, you can't have it both ways. You can't demand that the sport grow, stand there and say give me more prize money, bigger tournaments, better rules, better maps, and " I want esports to be huge and awesome in North America" -- then have organizers like MLG, NASL and dozens of online organizations GIVE YOU THAT and then just say "I'm not gonna come because I could get the same thing at home."
None of this works. None of this grows. None of this happens without the active support and participation of the fans and competitors. If you don't show up, if you don't participate, and if you don't support it, then there's an awful lot of people wasting their time.
... Wait, I was wrong. You can have it both ways, that's called freeloading. Or being a bum. So you can stay home if you want, but please try to find ways of supporting the growth of this sport and not just tearing down the efforts of people who are trying to make it grow.
|
|
|
Motbob, thank you for this. Saved me a lotta of time since I was about to try to wrap my head around this new format.
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 03 2011 19:03 HyAjO wrote:On March 01 2011 07:48 Keitzer wrote:
so basically... if you sign up as a new player... you'll be player a SHITLOAD of starcraft over 1 weekend.... yes?
and it's against increasingly difficult players (of which, have played increasingly less games than you, sometimes) you mean "you'll be playing* a shitload of sc?" then no, the writeup states somewhere in there that if you are a new player and you lose your first two sets you will be eliminated.. thanks for the 70 bucks, later. though, i do think you can spectate after you get knocked out.. i was thinking of going this year until i found out about this new system.. basically what it is: if you werent here last year or didnt do good last year, you must do very very well in a 256 man tourney before you get to compete with the pros... i love how on basically the front page of mlg dallas it says: Think you've got what it takes? Test your skills against the best players in the world! Come out in person and play the pros; it's the best chance you'll ever have to hone your skills and make a name for yourself.but you won't get to play the pros.. not unless ur a god.. my bet is that the winner WILL come from the Open bracket... i hope the top of the winners bracket just stomp everyone in pool play... i mean really... ive seen ppl play the 'seniority' card but COME ON.. whatever happened to everyone getting an even playing field? its really because MLG wants to protect their top players because fans love to see top players and follow them.. i can understand that.. there are invitationals for that... this hybrid open tourney/ invitational tourney just DOESNT WORK.... 21 bo3's is really discouraging to any new players wanting to go... also, i hope you guys realize that 70 dollar entry fee x 256 more pays for the entire cash pool of the sc2 tourney AND THEN SOME.. not to mention the money theyre getting from specs... they should be making money from sponsors and actually paying players for performing... i mean hell, we could make our own tourney with same fee and a higher prize pool... ill call is manneredGOSU's gaming league or something... /Lulface all of this really leads me to believe MLG is a big joke.. i cant see myself going there and seeing all these poor kids who are basically just gambling (because thats what its called when the prize pool doesnt exceed the entry fee). all of this just makes me look at it as "put your 70 in the pot if you think you can win 21 bo3s in a row LOL, else your money is MEH MONEYYYY!!" i would make that bet against anyone anyday. ppl like the guy i quoted are STILL not understanding that you can play 2 sets and leave feeling bad cause you wasted ur moms money on a hopeless dream lol... and the reason why is because mlg does a horrible job of giving you information about the tournament itself.. no where on the mlg page could i find out about how the tournament works or how many matches can you lose before your out.. so to all of you thinking this will be an ENDURANCE race and a plethora of sc matches against pros awaiting you come april 1st, just know that wont be the case for most players. rather, it will be another tourney vs some random scrub you could play online for free.. im high masters level and i still feel like i could get out in 2 sets im sure everyone there will be on the competitive level and i really dont wanna go home after 2 sets and beat myself up about it.. i wanna have fun.. i wanna play matches... I .. WANT .. BALANCE! THINK ABOUT IT
So I just read that mass of words and afterward, I still don't really understand what your complaint is. Because in all of those words, you don't really make a single point, it's just solid whining. Is it that you think that by paying $70, you should be entitled to play your choice of pro gamers so you can tell your friends about it when you get home? I think you're missing the point of a tournament series. Basically, what MLG is saying is that because these pros did well last year in the series, they are entitled to NOT have to play vs random scrubs for 4 rounds before they start playing good games.
This is a tournament, not a fricking meet and greet. Your argument that you could lose two sets and be out...Guess what: You could make that argument for any number. "WOW WTF I ONLY LOST 93 GAMES WOW UNFAIR MLG WASTE OF $70." If you want to play a pro, then man up and earn it, don't whine because it isn't handed to you.
|
The only thing that seems kind of boring to me is that when you reach the Championship bracket you must face the 5th player in your group, then the forth, third and so on. I think it would be funner if you could switch up the players from each division, thus having more diversity.
It kind of takes away from the drama since you could say :"He lost vs him in the round robin will he get his revenge." But I think I might enjoy just seeing diffrent people duking it out.
But thank you Motbob for your execellent post.
|
On February 28 2011 16:51 Bobster wrote:
I seriously think people would have a lot less problem with the format if the Championship Bracket were a regular 32-man single/double elimination bracket, with 16 players who earned their seeded spots in previous tournaments, and 16 players who earned their spot in the open tournament.
Yeah I much rather have this, or two rounds of group play and the top X seeds can skip the first round of group play and be seeded directly into round 2 groups. Top seeds should be rewarded, but this is just too much. Given win rates in SC2, I can see why for marketing purposes you want to protect top seeds, but this also greatly punishes people who can't show up to every event. In an ideal world where travel was cheap this isn't an issue, but now the occasional Korean or European pro is much less likely to participate, and it only makes me want to tune in less.
SC2 changes too fast to maintain a set of 16 solid players. GOM has this problem too, the promotion/relegation isn't fluid enough to keep up with the rapid changes in skill level. This format has its merits, but given the short duration of the tournament it seems like it's too much.
|
On March 04 2011 03:43 SaturnAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2011 16:51 Bobster wrote:
I seriously think people would have a lot less problem with the format if the Championship Bracket were a regular 32-man single/double elimination bracket, with 16 players who earned their seeded spots in previous tournaments, and 16 players who earned their spot in the open tournament. Yeah I much rather have this, or two rounds of group play and the top X seeds can skip the first round of group play and be seeded directly into round 2 groups. Top seeds should be rewarded, but this is just too much. Given win rates in SC2, I can see why for marketing purposes you want to protect top seeds, but this also greatly punishes people who can't show up to every event. In an ideal world where travel was cheap this isn't an issue, but now the occasional Korean or European pro is much less likely to participate, and it only makes me want to tune in less. SC2 changes too fast to maintain a set of 16 solid players. GOM has this problem too, the promotion/relegation isn't fluid enough to keep up with the rapid changes in skill level. This format has its merits, but given the short duration of the tournament it seems like it's too much.
As someone who intends to play, spectate live, and spectate online events this year I think the format is great. Obviously from a fair playing field status it's not perfect, but in terms of balancing that with providing something awesome for the spectators it's fucking amazing. It's unfortunate that some strong players who are not top 16 will incidentally not be top 16 after the event.
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.
|
motbob making it understandable for even the least among the cluesless (-> me) thank you good sir
|
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!
|
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.
|
On March 31 2011 09:10 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Are you serious? It's only 8 rounds.
|
Thanks for the detailed information on the format of the brackets.
It's very similar to MLG Halo's format with the whole championship bracket/open bracket.
|
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.
Yes, it's been said many times before. The alarm bells should have gone off when no changes were made to the extended series spiel. There is nothing we can do about it. It's a slap in the face to everyone who competes and compete they will. The money is too good. Hell, MLG could dress them up in pink tutus and they will still play. They have full control.
|
On March 31 2011 09:13 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 09:10 I_Love_Bacon wrote: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. Are you serious? It's only 8 rounds.
I'm not talking about rounds, I'm talking about sheer coordination and # of games played. Given the varying game lengths in SC2 and # of people having to play at once, I'm not sure how you could logistically run it.
Further, from a spectator point of view, Swiss is extremely unsatisfying to watch. The tournament ends, but there is no final showdown. As a casual player in any tournament setting Swiss is the best, but that's about it.
|
excellent explanation sir
|
Thanks OP for breaking the format down, very easy to follow.
Too bad it's a really bad format, like many others have stated before me. So favored for the seeded players it's silly. I wonder if a seeded player who loses every match and finishes 21-24th will actually get ranking points for it, that would be hilarious.
I'm really baffled this format hasn't gotten more negative attention. Do even the seeded players think this is a good/fair system?
Everyone is complaining about extended series, but that's really a non-issue compared to this new format. Well, let's hope for some good games at least...
|
On March 31 2011 09:26 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 09:13 Baarn wrote:On March 31 2011 09:10 I_Love_Bacon wrote: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. Are you serious? It's only 8 rounds. I'm not talking about rounds, I'm talking about sheer coordination and # of games played. Given the varying game lengths in SC2 and # of people having to play at once, I'm not sure how you could logistically run it. Further, from a spectator point of view, Swiss is extremely unsatisfying to watch. The tournament ends, but there is no final showdown. As a casual player in any tournament setting Swiss is the best, but that's about it.
I don't see the big difference considering they are already running a 256 player tournament as it is. All kinds of software available at no cost to keep track of it all.
I disagree with it being unsatisfying to watch. I think double elim promotes more anti climatic finals. Swiss gives you a final showdown between the two best players in the tournament. Swiss tournament is harder to consistently win in and it provides the best matchups to see imo. My idea in a tournament is the best player wins. I'm not really into the big hype finals format double elim brings to the table. I see double elim benefiting the promoter more than the community.
|
On March 31 2011 09:49 Teoyaomqui wrote:
Thanks OP for breaking the format down, very easy to follow.
Too bad it's a really bad format, like many others have stated before me. So favored for the seeded players it's silly. I wonder if a seeded player who loses every match and finishes 21-24th will actually get ranking points for it, that would be hilarious.
I'm really baffled this format hasn't gotten more negative attention. Do even the seeded players think this is a good/fair system?
Everyone is complaining about extended series, but that's really a non-issue compared to this new format. Well, let's hope for some good games at least...
That's actually a really interesting point...someone dropping all of their games from the seeded pool might earn points for it. On the other hand, they're supposed to be losing to other monstrous players and it should theoretically be much easier to drop a ton of games up there. In contrast, someone dropping games right off the start could be losing to IJustCameForTheHotPockets39 or an underdog professional like Torch.
I'd be interested in seeing either reasoning why it's alright to gain points for a complete losing streak when seeded or a way to avoid the issue. It's way beyond me.
|
Thank you for explaining the format so eloquently. The format is pretty complicated and not really explain too well by MLG themselves. MLG should pay you for this  .
Would be interesting to see how much nerd stomping Huk needs to do if he turns up
|
I think it would be a lot better if the seeded players could still get 32nd if they lost every game.
|
On March 31 2011 10:03 Baarn wrote:
I don't see the big difference considering they are already running a 256 player tournament as it is. All kinds of software available at no cost to keep track of it all.
I disagree with it being unsatisfying to watch. I think double elim promotes more anti climatic finals. Swiss gives you a final showdown between the two best players in the tournament. Swiss tournament is harder to consistently win in and it provides the best matchups to see imo. My idea in a tournament is the best player wins. I'm not really into the big hype finals format double elim brings to the table. I see double elim benefiting the promoter more than the community.
I really like swiss too and it's probably the best format for determining the best player, however, I don't think it's possible in massive fields in SC2. Just imagine in every round there's likely to be a TvT match that drags on for a very long time that must end before any of the games in the next round can start. Especially after a couple of rounds when all the bad players are playing each other I can imagine some games going on for much longer than needed.
In a double elimination tournament there will be as many games for the first 2 rounds, but then people get knocked out pretty quickly speeding up the tournament. Also, round 2 matches can start even though there are some round 1 matches lagging behind, which means less waiting time for players/viewers which is very important.
On March 31 2011 10:13 urashimakt wrote:I'd be interested in seeing either reasoning why it's alright to gain points for a complete losing streak when seeded or a way to avoid the issue. It's way beyond me.
Even if they implemented some special rule avoiding that specific case it is very likely someone will end with a total of 1 win 4 losses placing 17-20th, I don't know if that's supposed to be better. So yeah, I'm not really a fan of this format...
|
I'm actually very interested to see how the non-seeds will do in this tournament especially HuK.
Anyone know how the point system works for players competing in the open bracket? For instance, do the players who make it out of the open bracket stage get bonus points?
The point system is still unclear. All I know is the seeds have a huge advantage over the non-seeded. What has MLG implemented to even up the playing field for those trying hard to gain championship points?
I understand they are only using the points from last season for the season opener in Dallas, right? Moving forward, the next tournament is based on Dallas, etc.
|
On March 31 2011 09:13 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 09:10 I_Love_Bacon wrote: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. Are you serious? It's only 8 rounds.
The MLG format gives 807 Bo3 (counting 2 Bo3 for the final, and no extended series). A swiss-style format going all 8 rounds with the 256 player count would give 1024 games to get one person 8-0 (and one poor sap 0-8). As for admin work, on the one hand Swiss has no 10 consecutive Bo3 in one day logjam (LBR1-CLBR2, then CLBR3-Finals); on the other, if you're using seeds to generate the pairing it may take a fair amount of work to keep it running smoothly, especially as I'm not sure how many matches in overlapping rounds you could run; and there may not be that many good matches until the later rounds.
Plus, Swiss is nothing more than single-elimination with reseeding in terms of getting a winner for games like Starcraft with a clear win/lose result, unless you paste a bracket onto the top <x> finishers at the end.
I'm also wondering what you mean by a double-elimination as adding "unnecessary matches to a tournament"; in terms of finding a winner (in games with clear w/l with pure swiss), just over 75% (769/1024 for 256 player) of games in a swiss style tournament are between effectively eliminated players, while no game in a double-elim does.
I mean, I can see the uses of it for players and if you spread the prizepool out a little differently, but I think in terms of a spectator sport like Starcraft there is just going to be too much dead time in between matches as you wait for rounds to resolve, and too much time before you're assured of top players matching off since rounds will take so long.
|
Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct.
The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375%
The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625%
The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96%
The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08%
For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more).
Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament.
Seriously MLG?
|
I actually didn't believe that the finals were a Bo3... Frankly I find that, and that the whole tournament leans so heavily in top 16 favor, to really leave me feeling bad about how badly odds will be tilted against up and coming players. Don't get me wrong, I love all the current seeded 16s, but they should have such a walk in the park. Maybe start the winners bracket with more contestants? At least make the last 3 rounds best of 5s...
Best of 3s are such a crapshoot in terms of allowing the better player to win, as we've seen time and again in the GSL. It will be HUGELY anti-climatic for MLG, and frankly bad for spectators to wait through a 2-3 day tournament where the head to head between the last 3 players could be over in as little as 20-40 minutes.
Can you imagine the epic games of Nestea vs MKP if was only a Bo3? First of all, Nestea would have lost and second of all it was only 20 minutes of programming.
Ugh.. at least the pool play and champions bracket leading up to the finals will be exciting.
|
On March 31 2011 11:37 Orome wrote:
Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct.
The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375%
The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625%
The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96%
The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08%
For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more).
Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament.
Seriously MLG?
Ouch. Yeah, I figured it was something that bad. I think having such short series in the chamionship bracket is also painful to all parties involved: spectators, players, and MLG.
|
Wow this is REALLY cool. MLG is doing a great job with this tournament and I'm definitely excited to see how the Pool Play plays out this weekend! SeleCT fighting!!
|
On March 31 2011 11:37 Orome wrote:
Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct.
The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375%
The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625%
The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96%
The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08%
For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more).
Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament.
Seriously MLG?
True, but that's assuming that each Bo3 is like a 50-50 coin flip. Skill plays a lot into it. Yes, it sucks for people in the open qualifier due to the sheer number of matches they have to play, but do well, get some points, and do better in the next round. That's how it goes. It's a season and this is just one event.
Arguments aside, thanks for this. I feel like actually understand the whole format for the first time. Awesome graphic too for lazy people who didn't end up reading the whole thing.
|
I'm very curious to see how the points earned works out just because with a format where the open bracket feeds into the seeded bracket. I have no problem with the seeds getting theoretical byes and not having to play as many rounds to get through the rifraff but how is a player that didnt play in 2010 supposed to ever get into the top 16 point earners if the people with points from 2010 continually show up and get seeds.
|
lolz if you just scroll down really fast it makes no sense lolz whos complaining we get to watch SC2 for a whole weekend =o
|
On March 31 2011 13:25 Antedelerium wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 11:37 Orome wrote:
Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct.
The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375%
The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625%
The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96%
The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08%
For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more).
Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament.
Seriously MLG?
True, but that's assuming that each Bo3 is like a 50-50 coin flip. Skill plays a lot into it. Yes, it sucks for people in the open qualifier due to the sheer number of matches they have to play, but do well, get some points, and do better in the next round. That's how it goes. It's a season and this is just one event. Arguments aside, thanks for this. I feel like actually understand the whole format for the first time. Awesome graphic too for lazy people who didn't end up reading the whole thing.
Even if you assume someone has an 80% winrate (and I highly doubt anyone is close to that), the chance to win the tournament coming from the open tournament is laughably small.
And yes, I get this is just one event and they can try to get points to get seeded for the next events, but 1. it completely undermines the credibility of each tournament in itself and 2. as long as they keep this format, 16 people are going to be ludicrously favoured every tournament. This makes absolutely no sense, you want people to win a tournament based on how good they play at the tournament, not because they did well in some event a few months back. That Agh probably has about an equal of chance of winning this tournament as Naniwa and Huk is completely ridiculous.
|
On March 31 2011 13:46 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 13:25 Antedelerium wrote:On March 31 2011 11:37 Orome wrote:
Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct.
The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375%
The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625%
The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96%
The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08%
For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more).
Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament.
Seriously MLG?
True, but that's assuming that each Bo3 is like a 50-50 coin flip. Skill plays a lot into it. Yes, it sucks for people in the open qualifier due to the sheer number of matches they have to play, but do well, get some points, and do better in the next round. That's how it goes. It's a season and this is just one event. Arguments aside, thanks for this. I feel like actually understand the whole format for the first time. Awesome graphic too for lazy people who didn't end up reading the whole thing. Even if you assume someone has an 80% winrate (and I highly doubt anyone is close to that), the chance to win the tournament coming from the open tournament is laughably small. And yes, I get this is just one event and they can try to get points to get seeded for the next events, but 1. it completely undermines the credibility of each tournament in itself and 2. as long as they keep this format, 16 people are going to be ludicrously favoured every tournament. This makes absolutely no sense, you want people to win a tournament based on how good they play at the tournament, not because they did well in some event a few months back. That Agh probably has about an equal of chance of winning this tournament as Naniwa and Huk is completely ridiculous.
Is it really that much worse then Qualifiers -> Code A -> Code S in GSL? Does the fact that a code S player has a 100% chance to win the tournament undermine that tournaments credibility? I'd argue that it's better then that because you can actually win it in the first event you get into.
Think of this as just a hyper-accelerated version of that, even if you're in the 16 seeded players, coming last in your group means you need to win 2 best of 3's to retain your seeding, coming 2nd last means you need 1 best of 3 to retain your seeding, coming in 2nd means you retain your seed, that is A LOT like GSL, where the lowest 2 in group play go into the up and down matches and where the lowest gets 1 chance, the 2nd lowest gets 2 chances.
|
On March 31 2011 14:08 Dingobloo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 13:46 Orome wrote:On March 31 2011 13:25 Antedelerium wrote:On March 31 2011 11:37 Orome wrote:
Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct.
The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375%
The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625%
The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96%
The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08%
For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more).
Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament.
Seriously MLG?
True, but that's assuming that each Bo3 is like a 50-50 coin flip. Skill plays a lot into it. Yes, it sucks for people in the open qualifier due to the sheer number of matches they have to play, but do well, get some points, and do better in the next round. That's how it goes. It's a season and this is just one event. Arguments aside, thanks for this. I feel like actually understand the whole format for the first time. Awesome graphic too for lazy people who didn't end up reading the whole thing. Even if you assume someone has an 80% winrate (and I highly doubt anyone is close to that), the chance to win the tournament coming from the open tournament is laughably small. And yes, I get this is just one event and they can try to get points to get seeded for the next events, but 1. it completely undermines the credibility of each tournament in itself and 2. as long as they keep this format, 16 people are going to be ludicrously favoured every tournament. This makes absolutely no sense, you want people to win a tournament based on how good they play at the tournament, not because they did well in some event a few months back. That Agh probably has about an equal of chance of winning this tournament as Naniwa and Huk is completely ridiculous. Is it really that much worse then Qualifiers -> Code A -> Code S in GSL? Does the fact that a code S player has a 100% chance to win the tournament undermine that tournaments credibility? I'd argue that it's better then that because you can actually win it in the first event you get into. Think of this as just a hyper-accelerated version of that, even if you're in the 16 seeded players, coming last in last in your group means you need to win 2 best of 3's to retain your seeding, coming 2nd last means you need 1 best of 3 to retain your seeding, coming in 2nd means you retain your seed, that is A LOT like GSL, where the lowest 2 in group play go into the up and down matches and where the lowest gets 1 chance, the 2nd lowest gets 2 chances.
I dislike GSL's format as well since I feel like Ro16 is too little of an achievement to get seeded into the next code S, but there are differences. The biggest qualm I have with MLG's format is that they have one tournament in which they try to crown the champion of this MLG, but with their format, the players have wildly different chances of actually winning the tournament. In the end, they'll claim to have figured out who the best player was that weekend, but seriously, if a qualifier makes it through 17 rounds only to be defeated in the finals by a seeded player, isn't his accomplishment much bigger than the winner's? In GSL, the tournaments are separate. Yes, it's hard to get to code S and comparatively easy to stay in code S, which is something I definitely don't like about the GSL, but at least all the participants in their respective tournaments have the same chance of winning. Every qualifier has the same shot at code A, every code A player the same chances at winning code A and so on. It's a slow system, probably too slow, but it's fair. MLG's is horribly lopsided.
|
the one thing I will add:
they've been doing a similar bracket setup for quite some time in halo (though without the pool play) and it's always been that a team who loses round 1 of open bracket would have to play an insane amount of bo3's in order to win the tournament. This is why sundance has always said (on cast) that MLG is a test of endurance. You don't just have to play well on day 1. You need to play well from start to finish. If you slip up early on and wind up in the losers bracket, then you've earned yourself several more rounds of play.
|
If points from the 3 events last year were not getting reset a new player could place in 3rd or maybe 2nd this weekend and still not get seeded next time. That won't happen this weekend but it could in the 4th or 5th MLG this year after the points build up again.
The top few places in Dallas can suddenly become the worst players in the world and will get to stay seeded for a at least a few events. In a couple MLGs it'll be very hard for a new guy to place highly consistently enough to break into the top 16 seeds. The system is designed to have much less change then the Code S system where a champion like MVP can be knocked out in the next month and in a few months you'll probably have people seeded based on past performance that should not be there anymore but stick around anyways.
Actually, the way GSL got the initial Code S and A roster by assigning points from the 3 2010 GSLs is similar to the way MLG will be ranking players. And the number of players that got into code S from past performance that way but now looked bad is why I think MLG will have a similar problem. Except then imagine they gave the top 16 or 32 of the first GSL a huge advantage to win and place highly in the next two and imagine how much 'better' you think the Code S/A list would have been.
|
On March 31 2011 14:37 coolcor wrote:
If points from the 3 events last year were not getting reset a new player could place in 3rd or maybe 2nd this weekend and still not get seeded next time. That won't happen this weekend but it could in the 4th or 5th MLG this year after the points build up again.
From MLGPro.com:
* After the Dallas Competition, 2011 Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points will replace all 2010 Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points. 2011 Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points may be used as Rolling Rank Points in 2012.
Basically, 2010 counts for this weekends event, after that they become like "lower tier" points used as a tie-breaker, so top 16 this competition are more then likely the seeded players for Columbus.
|
Format really makes getting into the top 16 so important for future events
|
Ya this weekend you need to be top 16 to get a seed. But in Columbus 16th place won't be enough anymore for a new player or a pro who lost early in the open bracket since the top players of Dallas will now have points to add to(you'll need 12th place at least maybe more), and the cutoff for top 16 seeds will go up every event. (until they reset it again or start dropping old points or something). People will have to go through the open bracket into top 16 multiple times to break in and that will be very hard to do.
|
lol i'm not reading all 14 pages but i agree with TC
hate that the open bracket players have to play about a million games but meh. it's alright
i like this format the most because it's like an actual sports bracket. I hate double elimination because there's no such thing as a loser's bracket in the NFL, MLB, NBA playoffs
this format in that aspect is awesome
EDIT: LOL there is a loser's bracket
well then IMO we should do it like real sports and have group play that decides seeding and just 1 winenrs bracket w/ bo7s
|
On March 31 2011 15:19 pbjsandwich wrote:
lol i'm not reading all 14 pages but i agree with TC
hate that the open bracket players have to play about a million games but meh. it's alright
i like this format the most because it's like an actual sports bracket. I hate double elimination because there's no such thing as a loser's bracket in the NFL, MLB, NBA playoffs
this format in that aspect is awesome
EDIT: LOL there is a loser's bracket
well then IMO we should do it like real sports and have group play that decides seeding and just 1 winenrs bracket w/ bo7s
Football and basketball have seasons that last months, with lots of games. MLG is just a handful of events every year. There's way too many people, and MLG wants to reward returning players who have ranked in prior events.
|
On March 31 2011 11:37 Orome wrote:
Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct.
The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375%
The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625%
The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96%
The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08%
For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more).
Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament.
Seriously MLG?
Ouch.
MLG, taking SPORT out of ESPORT.
|
okay my question is...if youre in the open bracket and you lose a game, since that bracket is double elimination, can you possibly get back into the top 4 and go on to group play?
|
On March 31 2011 20:41 bigbeau wrote:
okay my question is...if youre in the open bracket and you lose a game, since that bracket is double elimination, can you possibly get back into the top 4 and go on to group play?
Yes you can.
|
This format favours the top 16 players far too much.
|
On March 31 2011 20:41 bigbeau wrote:
okay my question is...if youre in the open bracket and you lose a game, since that bracket is double elimination, can you possibly get back into the top 4 and go on to group play?
If you lose a match (Bo3) in the open bracket you go to the loser's bracket and you can't get into group play (you can get into the loser's side of the championship bracket, but not group play).
|
On March 31 2011 20:45 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 20:41 bigbeau wrote:
okay my question is...if youre in the open bracket and you lose a game, since that bracket is double elimination, can you possibly get back into the top 4 and go on to group play? Yes you can.
No, you can't.
That's pretty obvious, only the top4 in the WB will make it to group play. Basically you have to make WB semifinal to get to group play, so in a 256 man bracket to get top 4 you need to win 6 straight bo3 games.
Cheers to MLG
|
Good job. motbob > slasher.
|
Man, I am currently building a space shuttle that should fly me to the moon, but they forgot to deliver the construction manual for it.
But nevermind, I think I can use this sheet. It will do the trick:
On February 27 2011 15:13 motbob wrote:And here's the image that ties it all together! click the image for a larger version
|
thanks so much for explaining it. And I don't really like how if you lose in Championship bracket you still get a chance to win it all by advancing your way through the losers bracket.
Other than that I think it's a good thing to try and change it up a bit. It will be nice to see if other tournaments follow this or change their setup to represent something like this.
|
I know a lot have figured out the "worst case scenario" for someone in the open bracket to work their way up though the ranks and the number of games that they would have to play. However I don't think I have seen much on the rare possibility that the open bracket would get filled out with 256 players. Granted, I don't know the turnouts MLG gets for the open crowd and I am just assuming that those matches are played on site in the BO3 format (from what I could read). Thats one monster of a tournament before anything can even start!
|
This...is crazy. And it's unreal how good it is to win your group. :O
|
How many matches will be played during the whole event?
|
On April 01 2011 00:00 Sebast1aan wrote:
How many matches will be played during the whole event?
over 9000.
|
On February 27 2011 15:13 motbob wrote:And here's the image that ties it all together! click the image for a larger version
I wonder why everything has to be double elimination? The good thing about the format is that good players dont get knocked out early, but in the late rounds i feel like things start to break down. You are more or less guaranteed to have players playing against each other twice etc. I also feel that double elimination removes a lot of the tension/excitement from the winners bracket as there is no threat of being eliminated in those games.
I think MLG:s format would be GREATLY improved if the championship bracket was single elimination. Make it an 8 player bracket with the 4 players from pool play and 4 players from the open loser's bracket (G, H, I, J in the image). This would allow for some very exciting games at the end of the tournament, while still giving players a second chance if they lose a series early on.
edit: typo
|
On March 31 2011 13:25 Antedelerium wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 11:37 Orome wrote:
Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct.
The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375%
The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625%
The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96%
The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08%
For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more).
Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament.
Seriously MLG?
True, but that's assuming that each Bo3 is like a 50-50 coin flip. Skill plays a lot into it. Yes, it sucks for people in the open qualifier due to the sheer number of matches they have to play, but do well, get some points, and do better in the next round. That's how it goes. It's a season and this is just one event. Arguments aside, thanks for this. I feel like actually understand the whole format for the first time. Awesome graphic too for lazy people who didn't end up reading the whole thing.
It's also assuming that the open bracket won't be seeded.
Here are some rules!
Some rules
Chaps: The seeding doesn't stop at 16. At least, that's the impression I get from the bit in the rules which says "Players will be seeded 1-256 for all Open Brackets".
So if iNkA shows up (I believe he's the highest-ranked attendee who's not in the top 16), he should be playing John Q. Nobodies for the first few rounds (admittedly there's a chance he'll be paired with a highly-skilled debutant) and he will not meet e.g. LZGamer (next highest ranked attendee outside the top 16) or Avilo (next next).
Also, 2010 ranking points will cease to matter after this first competition (again, that's the impression I get from the bit in the rules which says "After the Dallas Competition, 2011 Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points will replace all 2010 Starcraft 2 Pro Circuit Rank Points"). There will be lots of pressure on players finishing 4th and 5th in pool play to win enough games to make it back into the top 16 (quite apart from wanting to win the event!).
Yes, there's a big jump in the likelihood of winning from 16th seed to 17th seed, but 17-272 are not all created equal, and the mechanism for advancement is there.
Apologies if I've misread any rules. I'm a fan, not an MLG employee.
Finally: Thank you very very much, that is indeed a superb graphic.
|
Open bracket will be entertaining this time around as there are so many high level debut appearances, and thus unseeded players, and Huk as the #1 seed will likely have to play against at least some of them before the bracket finishes. Thus it's quite possible he might have to, for instance, play PvP against Naniwa in open bracket RO128 or 64. Being the highest seeded player in open bracket is actually detrimental this time around.
|
why doesn't TL do MLGs job again and add the dates/times to the TL calendar?
or aren't they announced yet?
|
On March 31 2011 11:37 Orome wrote:
Only just stumbled on this. Holy cow that's a bad format. I get that they want to have interesting matches from the start, but wow. Now, it's 4am and I hope to god I haven't messed my numbers up, but this is what I got from doing a little late-night math, assuming all players are 50/50 vs. each other. Should be correct.
The probability that one of the 16 seeded players will win the tournament: 79.375%
The probability that someone coming from the open qualifiers will win the tournament: 20.625%
The probability for one seeded player to win the tournament: 4.96%
The probability for one open qualifier player to win the tournament (if 256 qualifiers): 0.08%
For any individual player, the probability to win is 62 times higher if you're seeded than if you're playing the open qualifier. This isn't even taking into account fatigue which is going to affect the qualifiers hugely and the championship match format (where the player coming from the winner's bracket only needs to win one Bo3, which skew the results in the seeded players' favour even more).
Now, obviously 4 qualifiers will get into pool play, which will also give them a 4.96% shot (although getting there is extremely unlikely for any given player). If we therefore count the chances of winning of all the players in pool play together, we get 20x4.96%=99.2%. Now where did those 0.8% go? Well, that's the combined chance of all the players that don't make pool play (ie. drop any series during the qualifiers in a 256 man bracket) to win this tournament.
Seriously MLG?
I can still somewhat buy it if the odds against an open bracket player ended at this point.
If you see the MLG schedule, even if someone comes from the open bracket undefeated and enters the pool play, that player then needs to run a gauntlet of games with pool play players on Saturday. According to the schedule, the 4 open bracket 'winners' play 4 Bo3's back to back from 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm on Saturday while the seeded players only have to play 1 Bo3 that day.
I can't see how this is fair even if I can buy the rest of the format.
Edit:
The point I am trying to make is that even if the player coming from the open bracket might have a 50-50 coin flip chance of taking a game of the seeder, the actual odds that day will be much lower due to the gauntlet of games he will have to play. Also, it pretty much allows the seeded player to see nearly the entirety of strategies/builds a player from the open bracket might have prepared due to the sheer number of games they have to play.
|
On March 31 2011 20:48 UnholyRai wrote:
This format favours the top 16 players far too much.
I honestly think it's the best way to do it, otherwise people who aren't top tier will get bracket screwed and get knocked out of the Tournament quicker this way.
It's how they do it with top 16 seeded pros in Halo, Call of Duty and Gears of War.
|
On April 01 2011 03:07 oGm`REM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 20:48 UnholyRai wrote:
This format favours the top 16 players far too much. I honestly think it's the best way to do it, otherwise people who aren't top tier will get bracket screwed and get knocked out of the Tournament quicker this way. It's how they do it with top 16 seeded pros in Halo, Call of Duty and Gears of War.
That's how they do it in Halo, you heard it here first last
|
On April 01 2011 03:07 oGm`REM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2011 20:48 UnholyRai wrote:
This format favours the top 16 players far too much. I honestly think it's the best way to do it, otherwise people who aren't top tier will get bracket screwed and get knocked out of the Tournament quicker this way. It's how they do it with top 16 seeded pros in Halo, Call of Duty and Gears of War.
I don't disagree with the fact that highly seeded players should get byes, but the fact that the seeds are based only on results of tournaments with this format means that it will be very very hard to lose your spot in the top 16 once you are there.
Consider this situation: Every time a top 16 seed plays an open bracket player they lose. In this situation, at least 8 of the top 16 seeds will remain in the top 16. Moreover, no matter what the results are, it is impossible for more than 8 open bracket players to finish ahead of any of the top 16 seeds.
|
Do players have the option of opting out of consolation matches?
I would imagine it would be an attractive alternative to just take a lower placement than to play a Bo3 after you've play anywhere from 15-20 over the course of three days.
|
On April 01 2011 03:39 TestSubject893 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 03:07 oGm`REM wrote:On March 31 2011 20:48 UnholyRai wrote:
This format favours the top 16 players far too much. I honestly think it's the best way to do it, otherwise people who aren't top tier will get bracket screwed and get knocked out of the Tournament quicker this way. It's how they do it with top 16 seeded pros in Halo, Call of Duty and Gears of War. I don't disagree with the fact that highly seeded players should get byes, but the fact that the seeds are based only on results of tournaments with this format means that it will be very very hard to lose your spot in the top 16 once you are there. Consider this situation: Every time a top 16 seed plays an open bracket player they lose. In this situation, at least 8 of the top 16 seeds will remain in the top 16. Moreover, no matter what the results are, it is impossible for more than 8 open bracket players to finish ahead of any of the top 16 seeds.
I was thinking the same thing. In addition, I still find the loser bracket under the pool play as a bit redundant and giving a lot of potential outs. Groups of 5 and the 5th place position can still move on? The groups of death instantly become a bit less interesting (yay we all advance). The design just seems to defeat the purpose of pool play.
|
Better and much more fair than code A and code S as far as I'm concerned.
|
wow, my head exploded clicking on the image. These tournament formats gets more and more complicated.
|
Makes perfect sense now, thank you.
|
I wonder if this kind of travesty has been committed on a "double-elimination format" in any other sport or competition, including billiards or chess or whatever else. This practically insures that new faces have no chance. They get to dump their money in the pot ($70 $80 each? really?), with the odds completely stacked against them. The whole "pool play" section appears to be a string of meaningless show-matches. The organizers must think that these will please the fans, but an educated fan of the game (and competition in general) won't give a shit about the pool play, and will keep his or her eye on the "Championship Loser's Bracket". What a LOL name in and of itself! Sadly, I'm sure it will be the Pool Play that gets all the broadcast time.
I also find it funny that it's possible for one of these guys (5th-16th) from the open bracket to win the entire tournament without partaking in the "pool play" section at all. Just seems ridiculous. I hope they have some Emergency Services employees on hand to hook these players (suckers?) up to inter-venous injections to keep them alive through this nightmare.
|
On April 01 2011 00:12 Workforce wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2011 15:13 motbob wrote:And here's the image that ties it all together! click the image for a larger version I wonder why everything has to be double elimination? The good thing about the format is that good players dont get knocked out early, but in the late rounds i feel like things start to break down. You are more or less guaranteed to have players playing against each other twice etc. I also feel that double elimination removes a lot of the tension/excitement from the winners bracket as there is no threat of being eliminated in those games. I think MLG:s format would be GREATLY improved if the championship bracket was single elimination. Make it an 8 player bracket with the 4 players from pool play and 4 players from the open loser's bracket (G, H, I, J in the image). This would allow for some very exciting games at the end of the tournament, while still giving players a second chance if they lose a series early on. edit: typo
The championship bracket basically IS single elimination for all but 4 people.
|
On April 01 2011 09:18 Dingobloo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 00:12 Workforce wrote:On February 27 2011 15:13 motbob wrote:And here's the image that ties it all together! click the image for a larger version I wonder why everything has to be double elimination? The good thing about the format is that good players dont get knocked out early, but in the late rounds i feel like things start to break down. You are more or less guaranteed to have players playing against each other twice etc. I also feel that double elimination removes a lot of the tension/excitement from the winners bracket as there is no threat of being eliminated in those games. I think MLG:s format would be GREATLY improved if the championship bracket was single elimination. Make it an 8 player bracket with the 4 players from pool play and 4 players from the open loser's bracket (G, H, I, J in the image). This would allow for some very exciting games at the end of the tournament, while still giving players a second chance if they lose a series early on. edit: typo The championship bracket basically IS single elimination for all but 4 people.
Still a double elimination bracket.
|
This really is very informative. Why such complex style for the competition?
|
On April 01 2011 14:59 FinestHour wrote:
This really is very informative. Why such complex style for the competition?
To find the best player!
|
Very impressive format for this tournament. Great work bob!
|
i can not think of a single reason why they would use such a complex format. not exactly opening it up to the masses is it?
|
is the finals still BO3 for the championship finals?
|
On April 02 2011 04:48 Zaffy wrote:
i can not think of a single reason why they would use such a complex format. not exactly opening it up to the masses is it?
I don't think that is the goal at hand. They want to establish a small core of well-known players which they use to generate a storyline and publicity with, and just have a tiny window of opportunity for the masses to get in.
I though GSL Code S were a protected bunch, but hell the top seeds in the MLG circuit has a proverbial life guard carrying lots of life jackets, parachutes and soft cussions for around for them.
|
Okay I understood it. But I laughed so hard, I mean: wth? why would anybody design a contest like THAT?
|
|
|
Really pathetic format that undermines credibility of "esports" They basically rig the system so they will always have the popular players doing "well" despite how good they actually are. Pretty much a joke. Its sad that MLG and GSL have to quasi-rig brackets in an attempt to garner more viewers and gain consistency.
|
With yesterday games in mind, I'm not a fan of this new format, because none of the yesterday games had stakes (or understandable stakes). I watched all games, and I still don't know what effect the outcome of those games will have.
|
^ Basically look at it this way. The playoffs (winner+loser-bracket) has spots for four players in the winner-bracket. The top player from the group automatically goes to winner-bracket semi-finals, while everyone else (2nd-5th place in group) gets directly send to the losers' bracket. So the top player from each group is guaranteed top6 placing and has a much easier route to the Grand Finals.
|
On April 02 2011 23:39 MrCon wrote:
With yesterday games in mind, I'm not a fan of this new format, because none of the yesterday games had stakes (or understandable stakes). I watched all games, and I still don't know what effect the outcome of those games will have.
In my opinion it was much better than the last mlg, less ads, more and better games. OK, one b3 doesn't mean so much, but in an open tournament the first rounds are really boring and nobody wants to see Idra against a diamond player.
|
On April 02 2011 23:46 vdale wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2011 23:39 MrCon wrote:
With yesterday games in mind, I'm not a fan of this new format, because none of the yesterday games had stakes (or understandable stakes). I watched all games, and I still don't know what effect the outcome of those games will have.
In my opinion it was much better than the last mlg, less ads, more and better games. OK, one b3 doesn't mean so much, but in an open tournament the first rounds are really boring and nobody wants to see Idra against a diamond player.
I agree with the bolded part, but that's not my point. My point is that I still don't know why these games were played, what the winner gain by winning them (well, I guess a higher seed ?) I don't even know if players who lost all their games are eliminated or not. The caster didn't explain anything. I read the format explanation like 2 months ago, I should have read it again to know if the game matter of not.
|
On April 01 2011 15:02 zaii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2011 14:59 FinestHour wrote:
This really is very informative. Why such complex style for the competition? To find the best player!
From a marketing standpoint, it's very smart; for the players who aren't seeded... it's absolutely dreadful. It isn't the best format for the players.
|
On April 02 2011 23:57 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2011 23:46 vdale wrote:On April 02 2011 23:39 MrCon wrote:
With yesterday games in mind, I'm not a fan of this new format, because none of the yesterday games had stakes (or understandable stakes). I watched all games, and I still don't know what effect the outcome of those games will have.
In my opinion it was much better than the last mlg, less ads, more and better games. OK, one b3 doesn't mean so much, but in an open tournament the first rounds are really boring and nobody wants to see Idra against a diamond player. I agree with the bolded part, but that's not my point. My point is that I still don't know why these games were played, what the winner gain by winning them (well, I guess a higher seed ?) I don't even know if players who lost all their games are eliminated or not. The caster didn't explain anything. I read the format explanation like 2 months ago, I should have read it again to know if the game matter of not.
All the games matter. However, Pool Play is not part of the championship bracket, but rather determines your place in the championship bracket. If you are not first in your pool, this basically counts as "LOSS" (for double elimination purposes) and you go to the championship bracket in the losers bracket, where you will be facing elimination each series. If you are lower in your pool, then you have more chances to face elimination.
If you win your group, this counts as a "WIN" for the double elimination format and you go to the championship bracket in the winner portion, where you drop down to the losers portion if you lose.
A genius system, similar to GSL if you think of the top 16 as the Code "S" players. Sure its unlikely for someone to grind through the open to win it all, but if they just place somewhere then they get points that allow them to qualify for a higher seed next time. Just like in the GSL, you have to grind through an open to make Code A, then win ANOTHER tournament to get Code S, then ANOTHER tournament to win it all. Its just that in MLG, you can do this all in one weekend instead of in several months. And that your standing is based on points rather than Codes.
I think it's a genius system, and all the b*tching is just cuz it's different than other tournaments.
|
but if they just place somewhere then they get points that allow them to qualify for a higher seed next time
That is only true for the first one or two MLGs. After that the seeded players will have accumulated enough points from the system guaranteeing a high spot every event that an open player with few points can't just place somewhere and get top 16 in points. They'll need something like top 3 or get top 16 multiple times. Meanwhile the winner of Dallas can probably lose almost every game after this and be safe in his seeded spot for 3-4 more events.
Also doing it in one weekend is a huge disadvantage the seeds will be well rested Sunday after only playing one game today while the open players grind out games.
|
Thanks for the explanation, this is very helpful! ^^
|
I've been around MLG for a while, so I understand where they come from and how stuff works but dang you are good with words. Well done explaining this. My 3 year old son could understand this if he read it. Hope it is as clear to everyone else
|
Thanks for the explanation, very well done and you deserve props.
However, the fact that someone needs to make a lenghty thread explaining something that should be easy and simple to understand is alarming. A tournament format can help make a tournament more desireable for "casual fans", people who may or may not tune in to see some games.
Its very difficult to get hyped about games when most people do not even know what a win (or a loss) even means for the players.
For me this screams of MLG simply having a bunch of people who are really passionate about brackets and how to do them, problem is, they are simply too passionate and spent too much time on something that is actually bad for them.
The complexity should always come from the games depth, everything else should streamlined and easy to understand. For GSL and TSL you know who will face who if X wins or losses, you do not need a guide, a manual, a video on Youtube explaining to you in massive detail everything.
Sorry for being a "whining whiner that whines" but MLG could do with something more simple, there is no reason to make it this bloated
|
Wow, after coming from 21 Bo3's you gonna be in the state of Maximus in the final showdown of the movie "Gladiator"!
|
Someone please help me understand! In the open loser's bracket (http://s3.majorleaguegaming.com/2011-dallas-starcraft2-open.html#) there are 8 final matches. What I would like to know is how do they decide on the 5th to 16th place in order to go to the championship bracket. I assumed the winner of each match (8 people) would go on and that would leave 4 available spot and 8 remaining losers. How do they sort this out???
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On April 03 2011 11:09 leo23 wrote:Someone please help me understand! In the open loser's bracket ( http://s3.majorleaguegaming.com/2011-dallas-starcraft2-open.html#) there are 8 final matches. What I would like to know is how do they decide on the 5th to 16th place in order to go to the championship bracket. I assumed the winner of each match (8 people) would go on and that would leave 4 available spot and 8 remaining losers. How do they sort this out???
There are actually two missing columns. The winners of Round 8 play each other, and then play the losers of the final winners' bracket match.
|
I really don't like this format. It really favors those initial 16 pool players and then REALLY favors the top 4 seeds. It's also not really that great from a spectators perspective. We've had to watch the same handful of people over and over again. There are so many great games going on and it would be cool if they would cast some of the great up and coming players.
|
On April 03 2011 12:35 theBOOCH wrote:
I really don't like this format. It really favors those initial 16 pool players and then REALLY favors the top 4 seeds. It's also not really that great from a spectators perspective. We've had to watch the same handful of people over and over again. There are so many great games going on and it would be cool if they would cast some of the great up and coming players.
I don't see how the top 4 are so heavily favored. The top 16 are all proven top levels players from past MLG events. These top 4 won their group out of these top players. Are you saying they didn't earn their spot in the top 4? It's still just a double elimination format; it rewards you if you win. So why shouldn't they be rewarded for winning over those who are losing?
|
OMG what a mess :/ Why make such a weird and complicated format ? It really confuses ppl and make it really hard to follow casually. Strange decision in any way you can think of it. Not a good thing for Esport imho.
Ppl want to see GGs, not spend 30 min @ MLG site trying to understand the tournament format.
|
On April 03 2011 14:52 ChApFoU wrote:
OMG what a mess :/ Why make such a weird and complicated format ? It really confuses ppl and make it really hard to follow casually. Strange decision in any way you can think of it. Not a good thing for Esport imho.
Ppl want to see GGs, not spend 30 min @ MLG site trying to understand the tournament format.
agreed
|
Edit: I didn't read the thread thoroughly enough, found the answer to my question by better searching
|
Very helpful. Thanks a ton, motbob :D
|
I have a question about seeding for the next tournament. If someone happened to be in the top 16, even if he is not as good as he used to be, he gets at least top 24. So then he gets more points, possibly even enough to stay in the top 16. So wouldn't it be quite hard for someone to get out of the top 16, no matter how badly he plays, if he started at like 12th?
|
This really did help explain alot of things, I initially thought that the people at the bottom of the pools would be eliminated straight away. I was worried for the fates of the liquid players, now I dont feel as bad
|
MLG had Championship Winner's Bracket round 1 set as KiWiKaKi (A) vs NaNiwa (D) and SelecT (B) vs iNcontroL (C) for Dallas, instead of the OP's A vs B, C vs D. Is that a change in the rulebook?
|
On April 03 2011 11:12 motbob wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2011 11:09 leo23 wrote:Someone please help me understand! In the open loser's bracket ( http://s3.majorleaguegaming.com/2011-dallas-starcraft2-open.html#) there are 8 final matches. What I would like to know is how do they decide on the 5th to 16th place in order to go to the championship bracket. I assumed the winner of each match (8 people) would go on and that would leave 4 available spot and 8 remaining losers. How do they sort this out??? There are actually two missing columns. The winners of Round 8 play each other, and then play the losers of the final winners' bracket match.
Thank you! They have this so messed up! I found out the bolded part in the losers championship bracket (http://s3.majorleaguegaming.com/2011-dallas-starcraft2-champ.html#).
Thank you again motbob for helping me understand the tournament.
|
The format is really ugly now that we are in the tourney.
Theorycrafting it some month ago was fine, I thought that perhaps the format was fine, but now, with this format being live, it's one of the baddest tourney format possible imo.
- when players play, spectators don't know why they play
- as we only see (in theory, because we havn't seen anything xD) pool games, we never get to see an important match (no win or die match)
- some players will need only 4 games to be in ro8....some other will need 12+ bo3 (well, we knewht already)
- we only see the same people play all weekend ><
This format was stupid (but understandable) on paper, but now, this format in practice is garbage.
|
On April 03 2011 16:48 Primadog wrote:
MLG had Championship Winner's Bracket round 1 set as KiWiKaKi (A) vs NaNiwa (D) and SelecT (B) vs iNcontroL (C) for Dallas, instead of the OP's A vs B, C vs D. Is that a change in the rulebook?
It's played by seeds so the highest overall seed plays the lowest overall seed and the two middle seeds play.
|
There was a lot of discussion on MLG format in the LR threads so I took some time to look at how to fix it.
Generally, I like the MLG format as a spectator because top players are playing other top players all weekend (or they will be after more events fix the seeds) and yet open bracket players still have a chance to win the tournament. However, I think the advantage seeded players get is too large. So I made a modified bracket that I thought was a bit better. A comparison of the two formats follows: (Formats in Spoilers)
Current MLG Format:
Group Winners: Guaranteed Top 6
Group 2nd: Guaranteed Top 12
Group 3rd: Guaranteed Top 16
Group 4th: Guaranteed Top 20
Group 5th: Guaranteed Top 24
Top 4 OB: Guaranteed Top 24
OWR6 Losers: Guaranteed Top 28
Eight from OLB: Guaranteed Top 32
Suggested MLG Format:
Group Winners: Guaranteed Top 12
Group 2nd: Guaranteed Top 12
Group 3rd: Guaranteed Top 24
Group 4th: Guaranteed Top 24
Group 5th: Guaranteed Top 32
Top 4 OB: Guaranteed Top 32
OWR6 Losers: Guaranteed Top 32
Eight from OLB: Guaranteed Top 32
Requires 4 more sets to be played than Current Format (WR1 games)
2 less sets in the longest path to victory.
1 more set in the shortest path to victory.
Current Format:+ Show Spoiler +
Modified Format:+ Show Spoiler +
|
I must say this is the best format i have ever seen. Really lots and lots of good games :D
|
On April 04 2011 00:29 Chilling5pr33 wrote:
but how did the players earned the places in the Pool initially?
Of the 20 places in the pools, 16 were seeded from last years MLG results. The final 4 spots were the 4 remaining Winner's Bracket contenders from the Open Tournament (the Open Tournament Bracket ends when there are 4 Winner's Bracket and 12 Loser's Bracket players remaining; the last 12 Loser's Brackets end up being the 21st-32nd spots in the Championship Bracket).
|
if there were no streaming / lag issues, I think this format would have been pretty good
I think the idea behind the format was for being able to provide many high profile low risk (since there's no way to be eliminated) pool matches. there could have been many good match ups casted from pool play, but streaming / lag issues put a huge damper on that.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
UPDATE for MLG Columbus: click here for updated diagram
There are a couple differences from before. Note that Koreans are now seeded into Pool Play, as described in this thread. Also, note that this fact "bumps out" four qualification spots from the open bracket. At Dallas, the four players who lost in the final round of the Winners' Open Bracket, as well as the eight players who made it to the top eight in the Losers' Open Bracket, advanced to the championship bracket. At Columbus, the top eight in the Loser's Open Bracket will play each other, leaving only four players to advance.
The final, obvious change is that the Championship Bracket changes slightly to accommodate the 6th place player in the pools.
If these changes were confusing, simply compare the two diagrams. Here is the Dallas diagram and here is the Columbus diagram.
|
Wow, thanks for the diagram! I was absolutely confused with the format but now I understand!
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/zBR3U.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/s0OEx.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fmsUe.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/IZAkg.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/elIjP.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dIXzA.png)
