|
On October 18 2011 02:51 Lobo2me wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 02:41 purpose wrote:Imagine this format in an OSL or MSL. Would just feel kinda silly if Flash or JAedong won OSL by playing 4 games. OSL has a ton of byes for high finishers in previous seasons. If you were top16 in previous OSL, you don't have to play in the 192 man qualifier where you need to win 3 series to advance. You don't have to play against those players until they've played another series against each other, reducing the 192 to 12. And if you were top4 in previous OSL, you get another bye, because you go directly into the group stages. So unless I'm wrong, top4 from previous OSL have to win group stages and 3 series (equal to 4 series) to win another OSL, same as MLG.
Except you're missing that at a certain point in the OSL EVERYONE has a chance to play the same amount of games. It starts in the Group Stages where immediately the highest seeds have to prove themselves and they along with the other 12 are all on even ground. There have been plenty of OSL's where the Top 4 seeds don't even make it out of the Group Stage and into the Elimination Stage. At NO POINT are more than 4 people(Top 4 Seeds) on even ground at MLG. It's a huge joke.
|
This is soooooooo much worse than pool play, it even favors seeds more.
Because in other way, they would still have to play 5 games in a group to decide their championship seeding, was alot more fair...
I don't know how this is a improvement from the previous format. A shame if this goes forward.
|
On October 18 2011 02:59 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 02:51 Lobo2me wrote:On October 18 2011 02:41 purpose wrote:Imagine this format in an OSL or MSL. Would just feel kinda silly if Flash or JAedong won OSL by playing 4 games. OSL has a ton of byes for high finishers in previous seasons. If you were top16 in previous OSL, you don't have to play in the 192 man qualifier where you need to win 3 series to advance. You don't have to play against those players until they've played another series against each other, reducing the 192 to 12. And if you were top4 in previous OSL, you get another bye, because you go directly into the group stages. So unless I'm wrong, top4 from previous OSL have to win group stages and 3 series (equal to 4 series) to win another OSL, same as MLG. The difference is in OSL, the other players just have to win one more series than a ro4 finisher. In this, they have to win 3 series more I think which is 2x as much as the highest seed.
Ok, you're arguing some seeds compared to other seeds, I thought the argument was about seeded players compared to the lowest tier (open bracket players). In OSL it's up to 192 players battling until there's only 12 left, then you insert rank 5-16 from last OSL to reduce it to half, and then you insert rank 1-4 from last OSL to make it 16 players. MLG has a slightly bigger open brackets and insert players 4 and 4 at a time, but they both give huge advantages for doing well in previous tournament(s).
|
On October 18 2011 03:02 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 02:51 Lobo2me wrote:On October 18 2011 02:41 purpose wrote:Imagine this format in an OSL or MSL. Would just feel kinda silly if Flash or JAedong won OSL by playing 4 games. OSL has a ton of byes for high finishers in previous seasons. If you were top16 in previous OSL, you don't have to play in the 192 man qualifier where you need to win 3 series to advance. You don't have to play against those players until they've played another series against each other, reducing the 192 to 12. And if you were top4 in previous OSL, you get another bye, because you go directly into the group stages. So unless I'm wrong, top4 from previous OSL have to win group stages and 3 series (equal to 4 series) to win another OSL, same as MLG. Except you're missing that at a certain point in the OSL EVERYONE has a chance to play the same amount of games. It starts in the Group Stages where immediately the highest seeds have to prove themselves and they along with the other 12 are all on even ground. There have been plenty of OSL's where the Top 4 seeds don't even make it out of the Group Stage and into the Elimination Stage. At NO POINT are more than 4 people(Top 4 Seeds) on even ground at MLG. It's a huge joke.
On top of that, the OSL is a three months long event. You don't have to play 15 Bo3s or more during a 3-day event (The first qualifier is three Bo3s in one day, if you are an unseeded B-teamer, after that it is mostly one series per week).
Seriously, this MLG-OSL comparison is just not working.
Edit: I see your main-point is the seeding advantage. Still, as a Top4-OSL player you have to do exactly the same as the other 12 qualified players (and everything beforehand is not even considered the OSL, but the qualifiers). In MLG, already the 13th seed has way more work cut out for him (at least 3 more series, beware dropping one series early, then everything becomes impossible in the lower bracket).
|
On October 18 2011 03:02 Hrrrrm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 02:51 Lobo2me wrote:On October 18 2011 02:41 purpose wrote:Imagine this format in an OSL or MSL. Would just feel kinda silly if Flash or JAedong won OSL by playing 4 games. OSL has a ton of byes for high finishers in previous seasons. If you were top16 in previous OSL, you don't have to play in the 192 man qualifier where you need to win 3 series to advance. You don't have to play against those players until they've played another series against each other, reducing the 192 to 12. And if you were top4 in previous OSL, you get another bye, because you go directly into the group stages. So unless I'm wrong, top4 from previous OSL have to win group stages and 3 series (equal to 4 series) to win another OSL, same as MLG. Except you're missing that at a certain point in the OSL EVERYONE has a chance to play the same amount of games. It starts in the Group Stages where immediately the highest seeds have to prove themselves and they along with the other 12 are all on even ground. There have been plenty of OSL's where the Top 4 seeds don't even make it out of the Group Stage and into the Elimination Stage. At NO POINT are more than 4 people(Top 4 Seeds) on even ground at MLG. It's a huge joke.
And that certain point is round 6. The qualifiers for OSL are harder than any Open bracket in MLG, because to get there you have to have a pro gaming license. When you get to OSL group stages all players are equal (except for higher seeds having more power in group selection, which GSL does too). But to get to group stages if you didn't have a seed, you need to play as many games as you have games ahead of you.
|
im predicting if you're seeded you pretty much won a hefty sum of money. sad a finale with such a huge prize pool ends up like this
|
Since MLG is already changing the format up for sure next year, doesn't that already imply that they understand that the current format is flawed? They probably can't undo the current format without going through way too much trouble.
There's not a real debate here.
I guess you can all keep circlejerking in this thread though.
|
On October 18 2011 02:23 darlhet wrote:
how does the MLG invitational work? i mean if whitera takes the european one, will he have a spot in the tuornament or just a paid trip to fight in the open brackets?
It's a different tournament/event at Providence: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2011_MLG_Global_Invitational
He'd get flown to Providence, but play the other 2 region winners and the Blizzcon champ for an additional $3,000 prize. He'd be free to play the Open Bracket, if he choses, but would only be middling-high seed in his bracket.
|
I really wish they had pool play. I don't like that you get a massive advantage for starcraft skill you had 2-6 months ago affecting a tournament in such a massive way now (seed 1-4 have to play 3 less bo3's than seed 12-16...). Especially considering it costs a ton just to get to an MLG so it's not even reliable (not everybody goes to every MLG). I understand pool play sort of does that as well, but at least if you do poorly in pool play (your sc2 skill has dropped considerably) you will be seeded much lower, even if in points you should be seeded #1.
Honestly I'd just prefer a straight up bracket (everybody in ro32) with the top 16 auto-qualifying for it and 17-32 being from the open tournament.
|
On October 18 2011 03:28 how2TL wrote:
Since MLG is already changing the format up for sure next year, doesn't that already imply that they understand that the current format is flawed? They probably can't undo the current format without going through way too much trouble.
There's not a real debate here.
I guess you can all keep circlejerking in this thread though.
^
User was warned for this post
|
Also, note that having a seed is very useful; the top 4 seeds only have to win 4 Bo3s, total, to win the whole thing. A player from the Open Bracket would have to play 13-19. This fits with the overall design philosophy of rewarding multiple MLG trips.
Awful format. Not only inherently unfair but also injects alot of randomness in the draws.
And to top that of its bo3 finals.
|
On October 18 2011 03:42 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +Also, note that having a seed is very useful; the top 4 seeds only have to win 4 Bo3s, total, to win the whole thing. A player from the Open Bracket would have to play 13-19. This fits with the overall design philosophy of rewarding multiple MLG trips. Awful format. Not only inherently unfair but also injects alot of randomness in the draws. And to top that of its bo3 finals.
The bracket layout makes sense..
A best of 3 finals is ridiculous though..Is this correct or some sort of error?
|
am i getting this right.
The top 4 seeded players idra MMA nani and HuK only have to win 4 games to win the whole thing?
wow, anyone coming through the open bracket has no chance of winning this imo, due to fatigue and stuff
|
On October 18 2011 03:43 JLew wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2011 03:42 Redox wrote:Also, note that having a seed is very useful; the top 4 seeds only have to win 4 Bo3s, total, to win the whole thing. A player from the Open Bracket would have to play 13-19. This fits with the overall design philosophy of rewarding multiple MLG trips. Awful format. Not only inherently unfair but also injects alot of randomness in the draws. And to top that of its bo3 finals. The bracket layout makes sense.. A best of 3 finals is ridiculous though..Is this correct or some sort of error?
They can't have a greater than Bo3 finals because of the Extended Series rule. Without it you can easily make a Bo5 Semi's and a Bo7 Finals with the Winner's Group Finalist starting up 1-0 or just playing a straight up Bo7 and if the Loser wins, play another Bo3 or Bo5.
|
The whole MLG system is pretty ridiculous. The fact that incontrol was almost seeded into the top 16 is just absurd. Incontrol is a great guy - i am a fan of him, this is not to bash incontrol, i am just using him as an example to show how flawed the MLG format system is.
In the last 4 MLG events (the ones since korean invites):
Columbus: 2-3 in groups, lost 1st round in LB
Anaheim: 0-5 in groups, won 1 game and lost the next in LB
Raleigh: 0-5 in groups, won 1 game and lost the next in LB
Orlando: 0-5 in groups, lost 1st round in LB
Overall record: 4 wins 22 losses
Just because he got 4th place in Dallas, he has had enough points i guess to keep getting him seeded in, even though he continually went 0-5 in groups. Because of how high pool players get seeded in, he kept finishing around 20th place, so he gets around 100 points each time even though he went 1-6 at the tournament. It is insane how hard it is to fall out of the seedings...
And then then there are so many good up and coming players that were not dominating the scene at the beginning of the game or were not able to attend some of the early MLGs, and so now they have to fight through an extremely difficult open bracket because so many high talent people are stuck down there.
|
I wish these were longer series, and that there was more "head to head" style bracketing than "king of the hill/winner stays" style.
But the player pool is looking awesome, so there's that!
|
The amount of games needed to play to win the whole tournament (assuming every match is a win except for last round losses for OLB)
top4 : 4 matches
5-8 : 5 matches
9-12 : 6 matches
13-16: 7 matches
OWB1-4: 13 matches
OLB1-4: 19+ matches
OLB5-12: 21+ matches
The OLB numbers are assuming losing in the very last round of OWB, and the OLB numbers could still be off a couple matches.
Anyone from brackets plays more matches than the top4 will have to play in maps (top4 = at most 12 maps, Bracket players have at minimum 13 matches)
|
On October 18 2011 00:55 Wren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2011 18:22 Lobo2me wrote:On October 17 2011 16:00 AdreN- wrote:On October 17 2011 15:49 synkronized wrote:On October 17 2011 14:39 zaii wrote:On October 17 2011 14:12 ThyHate wrote:
what is wrong with MLG and their tourneys formats -_- This is just an INSANE advantage for the seeds.. makes attending MLG regular season events and earning more points much more important. Yeah but the MLG format's still messed up. The true MLG tournie is pool play to take the top spot within that pool, followed by a Ro4 tournie. The Loser's Bracket and Championship bracket outside of the top seeds, all of it's a waste of time. The MLG format's meant to exhaust anyone who misses a single step in the open tourney and pool play whilst providing insane advantages to the top seeds. You can argue that taking 1st in pool play's balanced, which it arguably is. But let's eliminate the pretense that anyone has a fucking chance outside of the top 4 from the Pools cause no one does. Has the winner of each pool group gone on to win every MLG? Remember that finishing first in the group is guaranteed to give 6th as worst. Event: Player first in groups (finishing rank in bracket) Dallas: Naniwa (1st), Kiwikaki (2nd), Select (3rd), Incontrol (4th) Colombus: MMA (1st), Losira (2nd), Idra (4th), Naniwa (6th) Anaheim: MVP (1st), Boxer (3rd), DRG (5th), Rain (6th) Raleigh: Bomber (1st), Coca (2nd), DRG (3rd), Puma (5th) Orlando: Huk (1st), TheStC (3rd), Marineking (5th), Bomber (6th) So from that we can see, only 6 players over 5 events managed to break into the finishing top 4, and thus change the top 4 that were at the start of championship sunday (that were the top in each group). Out of the 6 players that got into top 4 that didn't get first in their groups, 4 were 2nd in their groups (MC, MMA, Ganzi, Idra), and 2 were 3rd in their groups (NaDa, MC). It's worth noting that 4 of those group champions were from the Open Bracket (Finishes: 3,5,5,6). So while invited pool players have an advantage, it's not quite as horrific.
Forgot Naniwa in Dallas, who was champion out of the Open Bracket.
|
On October 18 2011 04:22 tentoff wrote:
The whole MLG system is pretty ridiculous. The fact that incontrol was almost seeded into the top 16 is just absurd. Incontrol is a great guy - i am a fan of him, this is not to bash incontrol, i am just using him as an example to show how flawed the MLG format system is.
In the last 4 MLG events (the ones since korean invites):
Columbus: 2-3 in groups, lost 1st round in LB
Anaheim: 0-5 in groups, won 1 game and lost the next in LB
Raleigh: 0-5 in groups, won 1 game and lost the next in LB
Orlando: 0-5 in groups, lost 1st round in LB
Overall record: 4 wins 22 losses
Just because he got 4th place in Dallas, he has had enough points i guess to keep getting him seeded in, even though he continually went 0-5 in groups. Because of how high pool players get seeded in, he kept finishing around 20th place, so he gets around 100 points each time even though he went 1-6 at the tournament. It is insane how hard it is to fall out of the seedings...
And then then there are so many good up and coming players that were not dominating the scene at the beginning of the game or were not able to attend some of the early MLGs, and so now they have to fight through an extremely difficult open bracket because so many high talent people are stuck down there.
Gotta agree with you. Also, I'm pretty sure theres going to be atleast 1 player who can't show up, thus probably giving incontrol the spot. I'm not bashing on him, but his performance is really not worthy for a seed. The next player after him is Sheth, who is a little more consistent that Incontrol, but the player after that is MVP. Its ridiculous how a 1st place finish from the best terran in the world doesn't even get a seed, and incontrol could quite possibly.
Basically, all of the koreans who only attended 1 MLG will not get seeded in here, as 1 MLG= max of 1200 points, and 16th place is currently tied at 1270. This list includes, MVP, Losira, Coca, theSTC, ganzi, nada, marineking, and some others.
|
I must be the only person in the world who seems to like the MLG format somewhat. It's the only tournament I don't get incredibly bored watching because it is so unique. I do agree that the MLG format needs some work, but I still feel they should continue to revise and work off of the tiered elimination format.
Perhaps a larger tier size would alleviate some of the issues of being seeded extremely deep into a tournament to the point of it being unfair. I still feel that MLG has a point in rewarding people for attending multiple circuit events (hell, it's cash in their pocket after all) and this is their way of doing so. It comes greatly at the expense of open bracket players, true... but open bracket players are more than capable of winning a tournament against the odds, look at PuMa at NASL 1, or NaNiwa at MLG Dallas.
One thing that for sure needs to be worked out for next year's circuit is players consistently being seeded despite poor performances in the group stage. iNcontroL, Machine, etc. are prime examples of this, and I'm not bagging on em for being bad, because they're better than I could ever be; however, the fact that it's even a question whether iNcontroL will get seeded into Providence after going 2-3 then 0-5 repeatedly in group stages since Koreans were invited is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps MLG could implement something GSL-esque about group stage seeding, like placing last disqualifies a player from being group-seeded in the next circuit event or something. top placement (1-4) probably needs to be rewarded more strongly in Ranking Points, too, so that there is less of a question whether or not the X number of players that do earn seeded placement in the National Championships really do deserve it upon merit of their skills or if they just went to every event and mopped up points for 32nd to 16th place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
