|
On June 09 2011 11:35 [Silverflame] wrote:
I think Jalstars thought is worth thinking about! It would be nice to see that idea being discussed by the NASL staff.
On June 09 2011 12:54 yoshi_yoshi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 12:24 carloselcoco wrote:On June 09 2011 11:28 jalstar wrote:
I think it should be:
1-10: Top 2 of each division
11: Open Bracket winner
12-16: Wild Card Playoff winners
That is exactly how I think it should be too! Yea this sounds good.
+1. The open bracket winner will surely be a top contender in the tournament. Think MLG-level open bracket, but quadruple the player pool and add a couple rounds so that only one (the best of the best) emerges. Also, since the 1st place prize is $50k, the tournament will likely attract top pros not already in the tournament (Europeans: Kas, Thorzain, Dimaga?? etc. Koreans: MVP, MKP, Alicia?? etc.)
And
+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2011 12:27 WGarrison wrote: I made a post about this point in the Q&A thread for NASL back in March. Its relevant to this discussion so I will post it here. On March 22 2011 02:12 WGarrison wrote:
Bracket and setup seem really nice. Only one thing bugs me about it, the open tournament spot in the finals is seeded 16th. I think it would be better if the top 10 (red) were 1-10 as they are, then the open winner (green) was seeded 11, then the 11-30 winners (blue) were 12-16.
A couple reasons for this.
1. You want to protect your top seed. The green seed could be anybody, a dark horse or anything. This seed will be much harder for the top seed to prepare for (less time as he is completely unknown until two weeks before), and could possibly be an unknown with little information about him. This is more dangerous for the top seed than lowest seed from blue would be.
2. There are to "Stories" you want to protect. You want to have the stories available for the champion top seed that crushes everything, and the story of the unlikely last minute underdog winning it all. When the top seed plays the open tournament winner first round, you kill one of your stories off the bat.
3. It is possible for top seed to hit the open tournament winner in the finals. This would be an amazing story. Remember the season that the open winner went 4-2 against the top seed in the finals. Well we wont have that opportunity with the current bracket.
4. Adds veiwer value to the 6-11 seed match. 1-16 already has veiwer value due to top seed. With the open winner in the 6-11 seed match it becomes more featured.
5. Seeding below the open tournament entry is a valid consequence for players who do not qualify for the championship through divisional seeding. Blue tournament matches are the ones competing for the final spots 11-16 and not making that means elimination. Its kinda weird to be playing for either 15+ seed or being knocked out, should be 16th and final spot or out. Blue is rightfully below green in this case.
6. It is possible for players who play well enough to garuntee that they will not have to play a random payer. One of the advantages now of placing 1st in your division is knowing the player you have to play against in match 1 in the championship. You have to be 2nd place in your division to have to play the green open winner.
Please consider seeding the green open player as 11th over the blue qualifiers 12-16. I think this will improve the otherwise brilliant bracket.
^ this man makes some excellent points.
Hopefully it's not too late.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On June 09 2011 13:21 RmoteCntrld wrote:
You can't just pick and choose match ups. Brackets are based purely off results. Could a weaker player be higher seeded than a stronger player based off their groups? Yes, but thats just the nature of the beast.
boom!
|
On June 09 2011 12:06 SanguineS wrote:
Standard tournament rules.
I don't see the big fuss. The best player gets the easiest first game. The lowest seeded player gets the hardest first game. If you didn't get an invite you are the lowest seed.
It wouldn't be fair to seed a player winning out of the open bracket above the player who were actually INVITED to play in the league.
The point is that the Open Bracket Winner is probably better than the #15 seed (and probably a few others at the very least), so the #1 seed will NOT be getting the easiest first game.
|
On June 09 2011 13:26 iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 13:21 RmoteCntrld wrote:
You can't just pick and choose match ups. Brackets are based purely off results. Could a weaker player be higher seeded than a stronger player based off their groups? Yes, but thats just the nature of the beast. boom!
It's not a typical bracket, though, with an open tournament winner thrown into the mix. Do you want to lose viewers after a first round matchup pins what could be the top two contenders for 1st prize against each other, one obviously getting eliminated? Probably not, and it may not be possible to change the rule anymore this season, but please consider changing the format for subsequent seasons  .
--
+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2011 13:40 GhostFall wrote:
It would nice if they could set up some sort of system like MLG where it is double elimination. like seeds 1-10 or 1-15 would get the luxury of losing 1 set, but still being in the tournament because they went through the regular season of the NASL, while the open bracket 16 seed does not have the luxury of double elimination. This is offset by the fact that he didn't have to go through the NASL regular season, and can participate in the NASL regular season.
Think of the time investment. The people going through the open bracket play games for a week or a weekend or whatever, for 50,000 dollars. The people in the regular season had to play and prepare for 3 months.
And a good point is made that being 1st seed brings a disadvantage in being hard to practice for. The 16th seed can be any of the three races. Everyone else is rather set, and you have all this time to figure out what race you have to practice against.
That just seems cruel! The open tourney winner has to win, what, like 10 BO3 single-elimination series in a row just to make it to the championship bracket.
|
It would nice if they could set up some sort of system like MLG where it is double elimination. like seeds 1-10 or 1-15 would get the luxury of losing 1 set, but still being in the tournament because they went through the regular season of the NASL, while the open bracket 16 seed does not have the luxury of double elimination. This is offset by the fact that he didn't have to go through the NASL regular season, and can participate in the NASL regular season.
Think of the time investment. The people going through the open bracket play games for a week or a weekend or whatever, for 50,000 dollars. The people in the regular season had to play and prepare for 3 months.
And a good point is made that being 1st seed brings a disadvantage in being hard to practice for. The 16th seed can be any of the three races. Everyone else is rather set, and you have all this time to figure out what race you have to practice against.
|
On June 09 2011 13:08 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 12:54 yoshi_yoshi wrote:On June 09 2011 12:24 carloselcoco wrote:
On June 09 2011 11:28 jalstar wrote:
I think it should be:
1-10: Top 2 of each division
11: Open Bracket winner
12-16: Wild Card Playoff winners
-------
That is exactly how I think it should be too! Yea this sounds good. The problem I have with seeding the open winner #11 is that #11 faces #6 in the standard bracket. Why does #6 have to face the open winner? He'd argue that #15 is the one who most deserves to face the open player because #15 did the worst during pool play. So we'd seed the open winner into #1 to face the previous #15, but now #16 because it pushed everyone down. The previous #1 would argue that he deserves to play the previous #15 who did the worst in pool play. My point: there will be complaints no matter where you put the open winner. The most logical place to put the open winner is #16 because by the invite structure, they're trying to invite the top 50 players in the world to the league, so the open winner should theoretically be #51 or greater in the world. Of course, that's impossible to invite the top 50 players in the world because player rating is incredibly arbitrary, but putting the open winner as #16 makes the most sense in theory.
Justifying that seed #6 should play against the open bracket winner can be a bit archaic but I'm gonna try it anyway.
The championship seeding would loo like this 1-5 is the division leaders, 6-10 is the runner ups, 11 is the open bracket, and 12-16 is the last players that clawed their way in.
1-5 seeds versus 12-16 becomes 5 matches of the top leaders versus the guys that just barely made it. Winning your division guarantees you a game against the "weakest" players from the league. 6th place is the first seed that does not win a division. He does not need to be offered the same guarantee. Just because of the way the brackets work there should be no reason for 7th-10th to face the open bracket winner because the divisional runner ups should rightly be seeded higher.
Also for hype purposes the middle seeded matches are the hardest to hype 1-5 seeds will have good hype because there is the stories about how they won their division and also their opponents barely getting in. 6-11 is middle pack players, 3 games that are harder to hype. If the open bracket winner is 11th seed then 6 vs 11 is easier to hype, reducing the middle pack games down to 2. If NASL is lucky and has a couple key players show up in 7-10 they have a tournament that hypes itself.
|
On June 09 2011 13:33 elsemyano wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 13:26 iNcontroL wrote:On June 09 2011 13:21 RmoteCntrld wrote:
You can't just pick and choose match ups. Brackets are based purely off results. Could a weaker player be higher seeded than a stronger player based off their groups? Yes, but thats just the nature of the beast. boom! It's not a typical bracket, though, with an open tournament winner thrown into the mix. Do you want to lose viewers after a first round matchup pins what could be the top two contenders for 1st prize against each other, one obviously getting eliminated? Probably not, and it may not be possible to change the rule anymore this season, but please consider changing the format for subsequent seasons .
I doubt viewers would stop watching if the top two players played each other in the first round. I cant think of anyone who would think along the lines of "yeah idra plays MC in the first round so im not gonna watch the rest of this tournament"
|
OP has a point. The 50 NASL players ate not the best 50 players in the world (please don't take this as a complain/whine, it is what it is - players were invited based on localition, aplication, visa availability, popularity, past fame etc, all valid choices btw, but they do not reflect pure skill). So whoever comes from open bracket could very likely be a much better player than the 15h qualified player. More than likely, actually, by looking at the current sc2 world scene.
A more coherent choice would be letting the top seeds pick their poison, but I agree that changing rules mid-season is an awful idea. Maybe for next season.
|
On June 09 2011 11:17 Kralic wrote:
I would assume anyone who makes the top 16 in a big tournament like this would be a tough opponent no matter what...
Lol couldn't have said it better. So to the OP - ya everyone in the top 16 is going to be a monster of a player anyway, meaning it does not matter.
|
Oh one more really important point.
If the open bracket winner is seeded 11th, the only way he can face the 1st seed is in the finals. Can you imagine how epic of a story that would be!
|
Im sure he wont mind facing me
|
You can watch the results of the TLOpens to have an idea on which kind of players will qualify (thorzain, kas, perhaps a korean ?)
I kinda agree that placing him against the first seed directly will be a little buzz killer.
|
It would be cool if the top guy in each division gets to pick his opponent and then the rest of the spots are filled up by rank.
|
On June 09 2011 13:54 Wargizmo wrote:
It would be cool if the top guy in each division gets to pick his opponent and then the rest of the spots are filled up by rank.
That sounds cool in theory, but players can make some really strange picks. You can get strange situations such as maybe the number 1 seed picks the number 6 because of some weird metagame or racial matchup reasons. Straight seeded seems way less complicated and is a sound method.
|
On June 09 2011 13:43 VenerableSpace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 13:33 elsemyano wrote:On June 09 2011 13:26 iNcontroL wrote:On June 09 2011 13:21 RmoteCntrld wrote:
You can't just pick and choose match ups. Brackets are based purely off results. Could a weaker player be higher seeded than a stronger player based off their groups? Yes, but thats just the nature of the beast. boom! It's not a typical bracket, though, with an open tournament winner thrown into the mix. Do you want to lose viewers after a first round matchup pins what could be the top two contenders for 1st prize against each other, one obviously getting eliminated? Probably not, and it may not be possible to change the rule anymore this season, but please consider changing the format for subsequent seasons . I doubt viewers would stop watching if the top two players played each other in the first round. I cant think of anyone who would think along the lines of "yeah idra plays MC in the first round so im not gonna watch the rest of this tournament"
True, people are still going to watch. But (going by your example), wouldn't it be much more epic and draw more viewers if IdrA - MC occurred in the finals?
|
On June 09 2011 14:00 WGarrison wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 13:54 Wargizmo wrote:
It would be cool if the top guy in each division gets to pick his opponent and then the rest of the spots are filled up by rank.
That sounds cool in theory, but players can make some really strange picks. You can get strange situations such as maybe the number 1 seed picks the number 6 because of some weird metagame or racial matchup reasons. Straight seeded seems way less complicated and is a sound method.
Why does it matter who they pick? The important thing is that there's a proper reward for being a higher seed.
|
dunno why they would do this.. rofl.. who the fuck would want to be top seed in the NASL?
|
NASL should have each of the division winners (5) pick their first-round opponent. The other 3 matches could be picked randomly or something. Would reward division winners, enable some rivalries, and would mean that the guy who actually does the best gets a matchup he actually wants.
|
well normal tournaments do this kind of stuff because they ALREADY invite the best players in the world, regardless of region (like a tennis tournament). so you can't just really go HERP DERP OPEN PLAYER SHOULD HAVE LOWEST SEED.
|
On June 09 2011 14:00 WGarrison wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2011 13:54 Wargizmo wrote:
It would be cool if the top guy in each division gets to pick his opponent and then the rest of the spots are filled up by rank.
That sounds cool in theory, but players can make some really strange picks. You can get strange situations such as maybe the number 1 seed picks the number 6 because of some weird metagame or racial matchup reasons. Straight seeded seems way less complicated and is a sound method.
I disagree on both points. It's hardly complicated, and it rewards the guys who come top, which is IMO fairer than the possibility of the #1 guy having to play Thorzain or Dimaga 1st round.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
