EPTIssue with NASL First Seed vs Open Winner - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tantaburs
Canada1825 Posts
| ||
|
Wren
United States745 Posts
On June 09 2011 15:25 Tantaburs wrote: You can only base seeds off of known information. If MVP flew out to compete in the open bracket of MLG anahiem he would be seeded as an unknown as he has no rank points or past MLG history. They can't seed based off the fact that he is a two time GSL winner. This is even more clear when you are seeding not only someone who has no NASL experience but you dont even know who it is. The only place they could be seeded is as the bottom seed as that is their seed based off of past NASL result. But you can have a tournament format that still protects the higher seeds from potential deathtrap open champs. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 09 2011 15:19 Bobster wrote: Judging where to insert the open tournament winner into the final bracket is definitely a tough decision to make. As others have said, the range of possible open tournament winners is wide, it could be Bomber/DeMuslim, it could be Baz/Zeerax (no offense, guys). I'm... actually not sure how to handle this. You make a fair point. Actually, you make a very good point. It's a little counter-intuitive, but I see your point as well. I know this sounds silly, but I've always preferred clarity over absolute 'parity'. MLG is an example of a system that is technically 'fairer' but confusing as hell for a spectator (and even the players and organizers). But I'm not disagreeing with the potential 'penalty' for the 1st seed. It's an interesting problem. | ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38797 Posts
The new question is: Will NASL change their rule? | ||
|
JLew
Canada353 Posts
Does anyone know if NASL plans to do this every season? But for the people saying that they will likely be ''way better then the lower tier of the top 16'' I think you're a bit out to lunch. There were 50 solid players in the NASL ( maybe a hand full of weaker ones but many at the time people were touting to do so well like QXC and Goody ) and this is the top 16 of that group, Select, Boxer, MC, July, Idra, Ret, etc. And there is going to be no easy match by the time it gets to the round of 16, and if someone goes through the 1024 bracket and then manages to beat Select or whoever in the first round then so be it, it's not like they didn't earn it. | ||
|
BahamutIIX
23 Posts
Even if the highest seed from the group phase has to go up against an opponent such as MMA or some of the other high level players that could possibly win the open tournament, then we as viewers get a championship caliber match on the very first match play of the NASL finals. After that, the tournament proceeds as normal with a balance of entertaining games and the amount of games going on. I think it could really add a big twist to the tournament. The open bracket will no doubt be stacked with high level players and it just makes it more viable to the 1st seeded player to possibly having a huge challenge on the first set of major competition. I see no real problem at all with NASL decision for this set up. It is a smart move and can easily entice the player base with a possible large and exciting match on the very first seeded match. | ||
|
WGarrison
United States96 Posts
On June 09 2011 15:25 Tantaburs wrote: You can only base seeds off of known information. If MVP flew out to compete in the open bracket of MLG anahiem he would be seeded as an unknown as he has no rank points or past MLG history. They can't seed based off the fact that he is a two time GSL winner. This is even more clear when you are seeding not only someone who has no NASL experience but you dont even know who it is. The only place they could be seeded is as the bottom seed as that is their seed based off of past NASL result. MLG has a system that protects the highest seeds. Unseeded but strong players do not disrupt top seeds. When MLG was a flat double elimination tournament several high seeded top players wound up against good unranked players in the first round and it was a problem. This is a key reason MLG changed their format. | ||
|
WGarrison
United States96 Posts
On June 09 2011 15:41 BahamutIIX wrote: This is a very odd concern considering that this is the formatting that most tournaments go through. The basic wrap idea of the seeded tournament (i.e. seed 1 vs seed 16; seed 2 vs seed 15 etc) is a very safe and constructive format that allows for very good follow through in entertainment. What I mean by this is that even with it being broken down as the stronger players versus the possible weaker players (which just on paper, can lead a person to expect a slightly lower or easier game for the higher seed) the tournament can make up for this with the amount of games. As we go deeper into the tournament, the game quality and caliber is expect to grow as it is assumed better players versus better players giving us better games without the large amount that the tournament began with. It is a great entertainment model for the fans and it works quite well. Even if the highest seed from the group phase has to go up against an opponent such as MMA or some of the other high level players that could possibly win the open tournament, then we as viewers get a championship caliber match on the very first match play of the NASL finals. After that, the tournament proceeds as normal with a balance of entertaining games and the amount of games going on. I think it could really add a big twist to the tournament. The open bracket will no doubt be stacked with high level players and it just makes it more viable to the 1st seeded player to possibly having a huge challenge on the first set of major competition. I see no real problem at all with NASL decision for this set up. It is a smart move and can easily entice the player base with a possible large and exciting match on the very first seeded match. Unfortunately what you describe is the opposite of what tournaments want. You want the championship caliber match to be the finals, not the Ro16 match. For example, you want to see the two best NFL teams play in the superbowl, not the divisional playoffs. More people watch the finals/superbowl, therefore the best match should be there. | ||
|
Sacro
Norway237 Posts
The tournament system for NASL overall is so good though so this wont annoy me too much, even if we could see a finals worthy match in the ro16. | ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
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 this sounds like the absolute best idea ! | ||
|
Tofugrinder
Austria899 Posts
| ||
|
elsemyano
United States33 Posts
On June 09 2011 15:55 WGarrison wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 09 2011 15:41 BahamutIIX wrote: This is a very odd concern considering that this is the formatting that most tournaments go through. The basic wrap idea of the seeded tournament (i.e. seed 1 vs seed 16; seed 2 vs seed 15 etc) is a very safe and constructive format that allows for very good follow through in entertainment. What I mean by this is that even with it being broken down as the stronger players versus the possible weaker players (which just on paper, can lead a person to expect a slightly lower or easier game for the higher seed) the tournament can make up for this with the amount of games. As we go deeper into the tournament, the game quality and caliber is expect to grow as it is assumed better players versus better players giving us better games without the large amount that the tournament began with. It is a great entertainment model for the fans and it works quite well. Even if the highest seed from the group phase has to go up against an opponent such as MMA or some of the other high level players that could possibly win the open tournament, then we as viewers get a championship caliber match on the very first match play of the NASL finals. After that, the tournament proceeds as normal with a balance of entertaining games and the amount of games going on. I think it could really add a big twist to the tournament. The open bracket will no doubt be stacked with high level players and it just makes it more viable to the 1st seeded player to possibly having a huge challenge on the first set of major competition. I see no real problem at all with NASL decision for this set up. It is a smart move and can easily entice the player base with a possible large and exciting match on the very first seeded match. Unfortunately what you describe is the opposite of what tournaments want. You want the championship caliber match to be the finals, not the Ro16 match. For example, you want to see the two best NFL teams play in the superbowl, not the divisional playoffs. More people watch the finals/superbowl, therefore the best match should be there. Not only this, but also (as was previously mentioned) there is money on the line. If the two highest-caliber players faced off in the first round, one would essentially be "robbed" of a large portion of the prize pool. | ||
|
WGarrison
United States96 Posts
On June 09 2011 15:58 Sacro wrote: I agree that it might cause problems, but i like the seeding system and it makes sense to give the open bracket winner the lowest seed. Giving the open bracket winner 11# seed would be a solution, but a tad unfair. The tournament system for NASL overall is so good though so this wont annoy me too much, even if we could see a finals worthy match in the ro16. I don't see why its unfair and in fact can argue unfair the other way. The lowest 5 players in the NASL championship bracket had every opportunity to secure a 1-10 seed and didn't. They now claw their way in from a playoffs to get those last couple spots. However the open winner has to play brilliantly to even get in the tournament. To give a player that has to play exceptionally a seed lower than the players that just barely made it could in fact be unfair. Please note that I am not saying anything about the quality of the players themselves just about the method of qualifying. I personally see an open win as a stronger qualification method than a playoff spot victory. This is even understanding that the playoff winners are still in the top 30% of NASL players. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3326 Posts
| ||
|
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
Look at ski jumping (yeah...) at some tourneys you have to qualify and in the first round of the real tournament the best qualifier jumps against the worst qualifier. But the top jumpers in the "league" (I think the top 3 or so...) don't have to qualify if they don't want to. If they choose this they are seeded the lowest and so have to jump against very strong opponents! Nobody is crying there... | ||
|
BahamutIIX
23 Posts
On June 09 2011 15:55 WGarrison wrote: Unfortunately what you describe is the opposite of what tournaments want. You want the championship caliber match to be the finals, not the Ro16 match. For example, you want to see the two best NFL teams play in the superbowl, not the divisional playoffs. More people watch the finals/superbowl, therefore the best match should be there. That is a good point. I hadn't quite thought about it that way. My view still stands with the point that there will be a possible high end game on the first day. The thing is that even if the open bracket player takes out the 1st seeded player, it doesn't really effect the end quality of the tournament. It wouldn't really change even if they just seeded in another player instead of holding the open tournament. The hard thing is that this is a highly theoretical convo. We are expecting a super high end player to make it through the open tournament. There is not doubt that this could happen, but, with a 1024 person tournament, anything can really happen. I think it just gives the viewers a chance to see a really good match on the first day of comp in the playoffs that will show the best player making it through to go on and finish their stay in the tournament. Also, just because we have a possible big match on the first day doesn't mean that the finals itself is going to be horrible. This is just a very hypothetical convo and it really is hard to setup a prediction set for this tournament. I would love it though if NASL had a set up for a double bracket tournament with a winners and losers bracket. I think that would probably be the best solution to any situation this may cause with the original brackets. Though I may be completely wrong. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
On June 09 2011 11:27 h3nG wrote: sc2guy: do you really believe the open bracket winner will be terribly bad?? it's a $50,000 tournament. I imagine a lot of Koreans trying to eat a piece of the pie. Guys like MMA, Losira, etc... will be tempted to sign up. Just a thought. NASL has a lot of strong players. But I truly believe there are a lot of powerful SC2 players who will sign up for NASL. Just look at all who flocked to MLG, and that was for only $5000. I think they think it's bad because 2 potentially strong players eliminate one another so early in the game. And even though the #1 of the open tournament will be included in the next season, I do have to agree. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
| ||
|
WGarrison
United States96 Posts
On June 09 2011 16:35 figq wrote: Look at it that way: it means the open tournament is the hardest possible path to win NASL. Would it be more fair for the guy that comes from the open tourney to have to play one of the weaker finalists, while someone else from the finalists has to play the #1? That wouldn't sound reasonable to me. Its an opinion on strength of victory. I think one of the other finalists should absolutely have to play the top seed. The playoff winners are in the top 30% of NASL, but not in the top 20%. The open winner is the top .1% of the open tournament. I view the winner of the open as naturally stronger than the playoff winners in the NASL. The open will have a lot of pro's as well, winning will be no small feat. | ||
|
Wroshe
Netherlands1051 Posts
1| Quality of the Winner of the 1024 Tournament. Although the current signups are not amazing yet I feel that the tournament will have a very good field. I expect many more signups of not only Koreans but also by more Europeans. The Europeans however will wait with their signup until the play dates issue with Dreamhack has been resolved, Xeris told us to expect an announcement about that yesterday but I guess it is hard. At any rate I don't think that we should be afraid of a bad player winning a qualifier and taking up a spot that should have gone to a better player. Take a look at the TSL3 Qualifiers, none of the players that won one should be considered and 7 out of those 8 made it out of the first round. In fact the final four all won a Qualifier. The argument the other way around, as in the 1024 winner being too good of a player to get Bottom Seed is completly invalid in my opinion. The last 15 players that survive through not only the Division Play but also the Playofss will all be excellent players. 2| Not over-rewarding the 1024-Player. I feel that the players that have performed well over the last few weeks should be rewarded for that and that because of that any 'bonus slots' in the finals should be played against the highest seeds. If you would give the Open Tournament winner a signficantly easier seed like the 11th one that is a slap in the face to all the players that have played their heart out for the last 9 or 10 weeks. (10 if you come through the playoffs) On top of that the winner of the Open Tournament honestly already has got a big price because he won the Open: A ticket into the next season. It is not like his victory would be completly useless if he were to get knocked out immediatly. | ||
| ||
