So I don't know about you, reader, but I absolutely love team leagues in SC2. Seeing the strategy and storylines that go into the clan wars involving games that are normally seen as individual just strikes me as both exciting as a view and intellectually appealing. They just seem special, even compared to games that are played in teams normally, like DotA/LoL and a lot of competitive FPSes. Because of this, I've been doing some thinking about clan war formats, particularly less common ones, and wondering if there was a format that could bring together the best of both worlds and really celebrate team competition. Which two worlds do I mean? I mean the two most commonly used clan war formats in SC2 right now: the proleague format and the winners league format.
The strengths and weaknesses of the two have been well discussed. The Proleague format is a much better test of a team's true strength, rather than the ability of a couple of key players to carry. However it (arguably) lacks the sense of cohesion, continuity and storyline potential of the winners league format. Essentially, one is better for finding the most skilled team, while the other is better for a dramatic viewer experience. But is there really no way to get the best of both?
In fact, I extend the question more broadly to everyone who wants to contribute: Is there a better team league match format than the two we already have?
I think that there might be, but I want some opinions. The downside, firstly, is that it's much more complicated than the pure winners league or proleague formats. However, I feel that it strikes a good middle ground between the two. It's heavily inspired by a clan war format I saw used by the FGC, so credit goes to them for the idea.
In a broad sense, the idea is to split the team match into small 'rounds', each of which is like its own mini-proleague-format match. The first round has each team play the required number of players. At the end of that round, the players who won are still in the match, and the players who lost are eliminated. The remaining players then compete in second proleague-style round, and so on, until all of the initial players on a team are eliminated.
To illustrate this with an example, lets use the hypothetical match of MVP vs. StarTale Bo7. The two teams would be given a map list, formatted like so:
Opening Round Match 1: GSL Akilon Flats Match 2: GSL Daybreak Match 3: KeSPA Neo Planet S Match 4 :GSL Cloud Kingdom
Follow Up Rounds Match 5: GSL Icarus Match 6: GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SE Match 7: GSL Whirlwind SE
Just like in Proleague, the two teams would blind pick players for the maps. However, they would only do so for the first 4 maps here. These first 4 matches would become the opening round. Suppose the teams picked the following players:
Sniper <GSL Akilon Flats> Curious DongRaeGu <GSL Daybreak> Hack Finale <KeSPA Neo Planet S> Life KeeN <GSL Cloud Kingdom> Bomber
All four of these matches will be played out. Suppose that the results are:
Sniper <GSL Akilon Flats> Curious DongRaeGu <GSL Daybreak> Hack Finale <KeSPA Neo Planet S> Life KeeN <GSL Cloud Kingdom> Bomber
The players who lost, Sniper, Hack, Finale, Bomber would be eliminated from the match. The winners, however, Curious, DongRaeGu, Life, KeeN, would then play in 'Round 2' of the match. Because there is 2 players for each team, that allows for two more matches. Therefore, the 5th and 6th map will be introduced:
Match 5: GSL Icarus Match 6: GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SE
Each coach/manager then picks (again, blindly) out of their two surviving players, who gets to play on what map. Suppose these picks are made:
DongRaeGu <GSL Icarus> Curious KeeN <GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SE> Life
These two matches are then played. Again, suppose these are the results:
DongRaeGu <GSL Icarus> Curious KeeN <GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SE> Life
At this point, Curious and KeeN would be eliminated. However, both teams still have one player left, thus they would have to go into Round 3 on the final map:
DongRaeGu <GSL Whirlwind SE> Life
The winner of this match then takes it home for their team, 4-3!
This about sums up the idea of the format, but the devil is in the details, so:
Q. What if, say, StarTale, won all 4 of the matches in Round 1? A. Then StarTale wins the match 4-0, because all of MVPs initial players have been eliminated!
Q. What if, say, both DongRaeGu and KeeN won their matches in Round 2? A. Then MVP wins the match 4-2, because all of StarTale's initial players have been eliminated, while two of MVP's (DRG and Keen) remain.
Q. What happens if the result of Round 1 is 3-1 in favor of one team? A. Ah, well, in that case it's all on the remaining player to eliminated the remaining three of the opposing team. An all-kill, essentially. Suppose the results of the first round was this, instead:
Sniper <GSL Akilon Flats> Curious DongRaeGu <GSL Daybreak> Hack Finale <KeSPA Neo Planet S> Life KeeN <GSL Cloud Kingdom> Bomber
In this case, DongRaeGu is the only player remaining on MVP. He will then have to face Curious, Life and Bomber consecutively on the remaining three maps, to see if he can eliminate them all and win it for his team 4-3. For example:
If DRG lost immediately to Curious, StarTale would win 4-1. If DRG beat Curious but lost to Bomber, StarTale would win 4-2. If DRG beat Curious and Bomber, but lost to Life, StarTale would win 4-3. If DRG beats all three of them, he will have scored an all-kill (as he defeated Hack in Round 1) and MVP wins 4-3.
This format is usable for as something as small as a Bo3, and as large as a Bo9, with relative ease. To compare:
2 initial players (Bo3): Each team would blindly select two players to play on two maps (or starting maps, if the individual games aren't bo1). If one team takes both of these games, they win 2-0. If the score is 1-1 however, the winning players playoff in an ace match. The winning team there takes it 2-1.
3 initial players (Bo5): The opening round will have three games, and thus always end in either a 3-0 score (in which case, that team wins) or a 2-1 score, where the last remaining player on the losing team will have to defeat the two surviving players of the winning team in succession. This exact format was used at SoCal Regionals a few weeks ago for an East Coast vs. West Coast showmatch in SF4:AE.
5 initial players (Bo9): In this case, Round 1 will always end in a 5-0, 4-1 or 3-2 score. If the score is 5-0, the match is finished. If the score is 4-1 on the other hand, it is up to the last surviving player to try to defeat all four of the opposing team's surviving players. + Show Spoiler ['Note'] +
As this task is quite momentous, it would likely turn into "get as many points as you can" if this format is being used as part of some sort of team league round robin, where map score matters. I doubt they would be expecting to pull off the all-kill.
If the score is 3-2, then Round Two will involve two matches (as with the Bo7), but the team who's up a player has the advantage, as they have an extra player to work with. If players on both teams still remain after Round Two, then Round Three is played, and so on.
On February 17 2013 11:12 TommyP wrote: Very interesting dude. The only thing I wouldn't like about this is that we would see a maximum of four players from each team and what I really like about team leagues is seeing many faces I don't see often but still, this would be awesome.
You could bump it up to Bo9 to have 5 players per team per match. It just makes it a little bit more complicated if the result of the first round is 3-2.
Creator <GSL Antiga Shipyard> Seed Maru <GSL Abyssal City> LosirA (NesTea is spare)
Creator <GSL Cloud Kingdom> NesTea (LosirA is spare)
Creator <GSL Daybreak> LosirA
LG-IM wins 5-4, all nine games having been played.
It would be not really any different to the fact you only use 4-5 players as is in all-kill, anyway. But I see what you mean; it would still be slightly less variety than SPL, but all players will get to play, so I still see it as an improvement over normal all-kill at least =P
If there is a way to encourage player variety though..?
Now, why do I like this format? Well, for a start, I feel it combines the best points of both winners league and proleague formats. You'll never have a lack of player variety, because both teams are absolutely required to use a certain number of players, and all of those players will play at least one game. You won't ever have to be disappointed that MKP didn't get to play because Creator got the all-kill as the opening man, for example.
Not only that, but it keeps the sense of drama and 'heroism' that you get from the all-kill format, because players who continue to win matches won't be eliminated, keeping them out there for their team, but without stealing all of the spotlight (which often happens with 5-0s and 5-1s in the GSTL).
Lastly, I feel it creates a much fairer environment in which to use map score as a measure of a team's performance...
The problem I have with the SPL is that it stops as soon as four matches are won. It doesn't matter if the players who's matches are un-played prepared extensively... it goes completely wasted, because their partners up front didn't pull their weight. Not only is that unfair to the late players, but it also creates a weird situation that I don't like. Suppose for example that you knew in advance (even though that's impossible, but just imagine we did) that the first 4 games in an SPL match were going to be won by Team A, and the last 2 by Team B. In the current format, what the viewer/teams would get is a 4-0 win by Team A. And yet, if the same matches had been played in a slightly different order, we would have gotten a 4-2 win for Team A. Just because the maps were arbitrarily arranged in some particular fashion, you can dramatically change the results of a match, because some games are unplayed. For that reason, I feel that any mapscore in SPL is, in part, untrustworthy and not representative of the potential team's skill in that match.
All-kill, obviously has the problem too, where you actually get actively rewarded for having top heavy teams, even in map-score. Suppose again that we knew that a particular player was going to score an all-kill. Depending on whether they were deployed first or last, the score can be 5-0, which implies a complete thrashing, or 5-4, which implies a very close game, when in actuality it was just one player completely whomping the other team. Worse still, if a particular team has many good players, but nobody particularly strong, it's typical for them to have players get a win or two then be eliminated, often resulting in scores like 5-3 and 5-4. Think about that... uniformly strong teams often get 5-3, 5-4, and top heavy teams (which abuse strong players early on) get 5-0, 5-1. Which team is really more deserving here? Do the scores really reflect that fact? No, not at all.
Using the format above, you can punish teams for being top-heavy, without removing their viability as a 'team design', and without stripping the match of its strong storyline/heroism potential. Because using the format above, no matter what, a true all-kill where one player carries the team, will always end in a 3-2, 4-3 or 5-4. Because of that, it means that if one player plays exceptionally well and the others flop, the score will accurately reflect that in a close score. Also, because every player absolutely plays at least one game no matter what, the map order of the opening round doesn't matter, and preparation is never completely wasted. It's fantastic, in my opinion.
So, how does everyone feel about the potential of this format? And, can anyone think of any different or even better formats for team league? Is it really worth discussing at all?
The Proleague minor league (I think it was called Dream league) once used a format that is similar to what you mentioned. Basically the first 4 players are announced and the only difference was that when it was tied at 2-2, the next 3 matches will be all kill format with the 2 winning players from each team and the coaches decide who goes out first.
On February 17 2013 10:54 iLoveKT wrote: The Proleague minor league (I think it was called Dream league) once used a format that is similar to what you mentioned. Basically the first 4 players are announced and the only difference was that when it was tied at 2-2, the next 3 matches will be all kill format with the 2 winning players from each team and the coaches decide who goes out first.
Very interesting dude. The only thing I wouldn't like about this is that we would see a maximum of four players from each team and what I really like about team leagues is seeing many faces I don't see often but still, this would be awesome.
On February 17 2013 11:12 TommyP wrote: Very interesting dude. The only thing I wouldn't like about this is that we would see a maximum of four players from each team and what I really like about team leagues is seeing many faces I don't see often but still, this would be awesome.
You could bump it up to Bo9 to have 5 players per team per match. It just makes it a little bit more complicated if the result of the first round is 3-2.
Creator <GSL Antiga Shipyard> Seed Maru <GSL Abyssal City> LosirA (NesTea is spare)
Creator <GSL Cloud Kingdom> NesTea (LosirA is spare)
Creator <GSL Daybreak> LosirA
LG-IM wins 5-4, all nine games having been played.
It would be not really any different to the fact you only use 4-5 players as is in all-kill, anyway. But I see what you mean; it would still be slightly less variety than SPL, but all players will get to play, so I still see it as an improvement over normal all-kill at least =P
If there is a way to encourage player variety though..?
I personally don't like this format in that it drastically reduces the number players needed in order to win. The one thing I like about the current Proleague format is that you get a chance to see up to 6 players from each team. This feels like a hybrid between All-Kill and Proleague that's way too complicated for the casual viewer to follow without having to explain it before every match.
I do get your concern about certain players never getting to play because their teammates lost before they were played. I'm not sure if Proleague reveals the map order to the teams when deciding which players to put on which maps. If they do then I think the format is fine since coaches need to make the decision what players they want played no matter vs map preferences.
I guess I should add that I've thought about this and one issue it has is that it limits the role of momentum. Unless you're last on your team and your team is down 1-3, there will be breaks in between the games you play.
I thought about a similar system as well. But I took maps also into consideration. And don't worry about "too complicated for the viewer", it really is not, once you see it in action.
So for my system I take yours as a basis but adjust it in oder to adopt for things like "snipers" and "map specialists", because I feel this two layered systems allows for some cool things.
Example for best of 7 ( four players per team):
Two days before the match the league announces the starting map as well as one player from each team and his map of choice.
This way we can actually give each team member a specific "role" and create a cool story line throughout the match.
The first player could be called the "vanguard", he knows his map beforehand but not his opponent. The second player is the "general", he can choose his best map (from the pool of course) but his game is announced ahead of time. The third player is the "sniper", he plays against the other team's general, so he knows both the map and the opponent. The fourth player is the "cavalry", he plays on a random map (from the pool) and does not know his opponent beforehand. After that it is All-Kill format with the remaining players with losers choice maps.
I'm pretty lost, but it does seem intersting. I have to say though, I doubt this will ever be used since the mainstream ones are really easy to follow and don't really require much thought past linear matchups. EDIT: Ok I get it now, had to read it again (I'm tired, forgive me haha). It's a cool idea and I'm pretty sure something similar has been used before. Could be intersting if used in small scale tourneys for teams with few players.
Dreamleague format is almost similar to this, except in the case where A, B from team 1 and E, F from team 2 win, instead of A vs E and B vs F it becomes A vs E, then winnner fights B or F, and so on i.e. allkill format of the winners from the first round of matches. Also, there are 5 initial matches.
On February 17 2013 16:52 saroir wrote: i think this would result in ridiciulous long matches with only 4 players per team like in winners league.
Yes, it would use less players compared to the All-Kill format.
But that could be an advantage for some situations. Say you are a tournament organizer and you want to fly in some teams. You would safe a lot on tickets while getting the same "value".
Also, while Korean teams are huge with practice partners and everything, western team are a lot smaller. So while for example a game between the 5th best player in SKT1 against the 5th best in Khan is still somewhat interesting, a game between the 5th bests from Karont3 and Alien Invasion does not really produce much interest at all.
I don't really see how the matches would be any longer. All-kill is 5 to 9 games, and this is also 5 to 9 games (in Bo9). The only added length is the time required to decide who plays on what map before the 2nd round, and that's maybe 3-4 minutes at most, and entirely irrelevant for any tourney casted from replays.
However most of the other concerns certainly are valid ones.
I don't like this format at all. Not only it is overly complicated, I think it combines the worse of two worlds. You lose all the cool strategy aspects of the "all-kill" format (preparing snipers, eliminating maps etc) while not requiring teams to be balanced (opposed to classic PL format), since there still can be a super ace the wins all games and carry his teams.
This doesn't make any sense for me. It doesn't bring anything relevant while giving up the best aspects of all-kill format.
The only perceived "advantage" over a traditional all-kill format is forcing more matches to be 5-X instead of 5-0, but this doesn't have an actual influence in the relevant outcome (team WIN or team LOSS), so it's not a real advantage.
In all-kill format, there is a dance involving the aces and the support crew. A non "ace X ace" match matter because a team is trying to eliminate bad maps, or because they can send snipers with prepared strategies for certain maps, or force the other team to send strategic players (snipers, bad matchups) at an uncomfortable time, or many other reasons
In your format, other matches are being played because they have to be played.
I'd love to see some pro level 2v2's. However I doubt something like that will ever happen. One way of doing this could be a Davis Cup (Tennis) kind of set up, which is 4 singles and 1 double.
I think the best thing I can hope for is a 2v2 showmatch after each round
I like how this would work out, but I do see one problem.
This would probably mean that we will see much mcuh less of a team's second-rate players/B-teamers in team-league situations. I understand that this can also be seen as a good thing, since we'll see more of our favourite/well-known players. But seeing random B-teamers that I've never heard of is one of the charms of team-leagues in my experience. That's how Life first made a name for himself for example.
But the principle would lead to very interesting matches, so I'd love to see experimentation with it (EGMCSL maybe?).
Hmm where to begin.... I like this idea and it is an interesting alternative.
First let's talk about some of the criticism thus far.
1. "This format is complicated." How is it complicated? It's a linear match format that involves BO1s and players are eliminated after losing. In terms of the progression of the match, the only difference is you’re seeing a different winner each round. Obviously, it’s a separate BO1. Sure, the format requires 1 or 2 additional rules to stipulate a team going up 3-1 (in a BO7) in the first round, but let's be honest.... if you can't understand that I doubt you're getting much out of watching an SC2 match in the first place.
2. "This format will take longer than other formats." Yes, the AK/winners format has the potential for being the most time efficient -if- the winning team is capable of a 5-0. In the grand scheme of things this does not happen very often. So I really don't think it's worth talking about. Both the OP’s format and the AK style format have the potential for going to 9 games, or being finished in 5. If you compared the format between two highly skilled teams I’m quite sure there would be little time difference even if you had them play each format 50 times.
As for those talking about the pro league style with multiple BO3s, or a variation with BO3s -and- AK/winner’s formatted rounds in a single match; these formats will obviously take longer as they feature roughly the same amount of players playing each other in more than one game.
3. You can’t feature as many players with this format.” What? In any standard (commonly used) format where you require 5 of 9 wins, you will only ever see a max of 5 players from a single team.
4. “We won’t see as many B team players with this format.” In this format you would require a minimum of 5 games played by 5 players win or lose to start out the match. A top heavy team in the AK/winner’s format can get away with winning 5-0 by sending their ace player in first. So you definitely don’t see any B teamers there, except from the losing team perhaps. With the OP’s format you might have 1 top heavy team with 1 or 2 ‘ace’ players and 3 ‘average’ masters players play a team of 5 ‘average’ players. With his format you atleast get to see 5 players from each team play regardless; even if the second team were to get 5-0’d.
Alternately, Pro League’s format you see the same amount of players fielded in a BO9 as you would here, there are just more games played from each person because of BO3s. This also makes the match longer overall and thus harder to cover in a time efficient and cohesive manner.
So... now let’s talk about the strengths of this match format. 1. It allows for a linear match format - you’re casting a series of BO1s, just as you do in the winners/AK format. Easy to cast and cover cohesively and entirely in a time efficient manner. 2. You require a minimum of 5 players participation from either team in a BO9. This guarantees we see more than just a team’s ‘Ace’ dominating an entire match. 3. If the team is top heavy, and in a BO9 is down 1-4 after the first round, their ace still has the potential of building the heroic comeback reverse all kill in the 2nd/3rd rounds. 4. If one team is simply far superior than the other, you will see a resulting 5-0, but you’ll know that the entire team worked together to make that 5-0, not just their ace player all killing. 5. The matches are BO1s, so you can cast them in succession, build the hype and importance of a certain player winning or being eliminated before round 2 (especially if the series is close). This would be done in a very similar fashion to the AK/winner’s format. In round 2 of a close match, the storyline can shift to focus on the remaining winners or ace players ability to pull through for their team. 6. Strategical depth of who to field on what map verse which player is increased because there are a minimum number of players required to be fielded in round 1. I.E. Map specific snipers, verse race/MU specific snipers, vs player/player style specific snipers, vs pairing your team’s ‘ace’ vs the others to knock him out in Rd. 1 and so on on.
The only other way or format I know of to accomplish -all- 6 advantages above is with the following: + Show Spoiler +
You take the AK/winner’s format and add 1 stipulation: A player can only win a maximum of 2 games and then must be rotated out for a new player.
Example 1 - In a BO9 - Team LG IM vs Prime - LG-IM Sweeps 5-0
G1: LGIM 1-0 Prime Losira vs. Maru G2: LGM 2-0 Prime Losira vs. Marineking (Losira now 2-0, must swap out) G3: LGIM 3-0 Prime Nestea vs. Byun G4 LGIM 4-0 Prime Nestea vs. Classic (Nestea now 2-0, must swap out) G5 LGIM 5-0 Prime SeeD vs. Creator
Example 2 - The same match but with a much closer result: LG IM 5-4 Prime
G1: LGIM 1-0 Prime Losira vs. Maru G2: LGIM 2-0 Prime Losira vs. Marineking (Losira now 2-0, must swap out) G3: LGIM 2-1 Prime Nestea vs. Byun G4: LGIM 2-2 Prime Seed vs. Byun (Byun now 2-0, must swap out) G5: LGIM 3-2 Prime Nestea vs. Classic G6: LGIM 3-3 Prime Nestea vs. Creator G7: LGIM 3-4 Prime SeeD vs. Creator (Creator 2-0, must swap out) G8: LGIM 4-4 Prime MVP vs. Terius G9: LGIM 5-4 Prime MVP vs. Lucy
What I love about this format is that it adheres to the 6 advantages mentioned above. It also maintains the same style or building a story as the AK/winner’s format while adding a bit more depth to the strategy of which players to field and when. A team can not rely on a single ace player to win the match, they must have at least 2, and a seriously consistent sniper to get a 5-0.
Something else I would like to suggest for the OP’s format if it were to be incorporated into a league:
One thing I did not see mentioned as a possibility (and something I think more leagues should include) is the mechanic of home/away games.
A team league that hosted 16 teams which played 2 matches a week over an 8 week period would allow a 2 month season where each team plays each other twice. This allows for teams to prove themselves twice per season prior to playoffs and more versatility with a home/away system. Perhaps when a team is away they are required to announce their first player on the first map first, or their entire 4 player roster first and allow the home team to decide accordingly.
Each team gets the home advantage against every opponent. It adds a layer of strategy to the team player-fielding meta game through the entire season. It also maintains the similar level of strategy in how a team fields their players seen in the AK/winners format. You can still use a player to snipe for a specific map, specific race, specific player, etc depending on whether or not you're the home team for that match.
If something like the GSTL, proleague, or IPTL used this I would actually be very very very interested if they used this. Very well thought out! I hope some representative reads this and takes it into consideration. I really doubt it would be used though, but I hope that it really becomes a possibility in the future
Hmm where to begin.... I like this idea and it is an interesting alternative.
First let's talk about some of the criticism thus far.
1. "This format is complicated." How is it complicated? It's a linear match format that involves BO1s and players are eliminated after losing. In terms of the progression of the match, the only difference is you’re seeing a different winner each round. Obviously, it’s a separate BO1. Sure, the format requires 1 or 2 additional rules to stipulate a team going up 3-1 (in a BO7) in the first round, but let's be honest.... if you can't understand that I doubt you're getting much out of watching an SC2 match in the first place.
2. "This format will take longer than other formats." Yes, the AK/winners format has the potential for being the most time efficient -if- the winning team is capable of a 5-0. In the grand scheme of things this does not happen very often. So I really don't think it's worth talking about. Both the OP’s format and the AK style format have the potential for going to 9 games, or being finished in 5. If you compared the format between two highly skilled teams I’m quite sure there would be little time difference even if you had them play each format 50 times.
As for those talking about the pro league style with multiple BO3s, or a variation with BO3s -and- AK/winner’s formatted rounds in a single match; these formats will obviously take longer as they feature roughly the same amount of players playing each other in more than one game.
3. You can’t feature as many players with this format.” What? In any standard (commonly used) format where you require 5 of 9 wins, you will only ever see a max of 5 players from a single team.
4. “We won’t see as many B team players with this format.” In this format you would require a minimum of 5 games played by 5 players win or lose to start out the match. A top heavy team in the AK/winner’s format can get away with winning 5-0 by sending their ace player in first. So you definitely don’t see any B teamers there, except from the losing team perhaps. With the OP’s format you might have 1 top heavy team with 1 or 2 ‘ace’ players and 3 ‘average’ masters players play a team of 5 ‘average’ players. With his format you atleast get to see 5 players from each team play regardless; even if the second team were to get 5-0’d.
Alternately, Pro League’s format you see the same amount of players fielded in a BO9 as you would here, there are just more games played from each person because of BO3s. This also makes the match longer overall and thus harder to cover in a time efficient and cohesive manner.
So... now let’s talk about the strengths of this match format. 1. It allows for a linear match format - you’re casting a series of BO1s, just as you do in the winners/AK format. Easy to cast and cover cohesively and entirely in a time efficient manner. 2. You require a minimum of 5 players participation from either team in a BO9. This guarantees we see more than just a team’s ‘Ace’ dominating an entire match. 3. If the team is top heavy, and in a BO9 is down 1-4 after the first round, their ace still has the potential of building the heroic comeback reverse all kill in the 2nd/3rd rounds. 4. If one team is simply far superior than the other, you will see a resulting 5-0, but you’ll know that the entire team worked together to make that 5-0, not just their ace player all killing. 5. The matches are BO1s, so you can cast them in succession, build the hype and importance of a certain player winning or being eliminated before round 2 (especially if the series is close). This would be done in a very similar fashion to the AK/winner’s format. In round 2 of a close match, the storyline can shift to focus on the remaining winners or ace players ability to pull through for their team. 6. Strategical depth of who to field on what map verse which player is increased because there are a minimum number of players required to be fielded in round 1. I.E. Map specific snipers, verse race/MU specific snipers, vs player/player style specific snipers, vs pairing your team’s ‘ace’ vs the others to knock him out in Rd. 1 and so on on.
The only other way or format I know of to accomplish -all- 6 advantages above is with the following: + Show Spoiler +
You take the AK/winner’s format and add 1 stipulation: A player can only win a maximum of 2 games and then must be rotated out for a new player.
Example 1 - In a BO9 - Team LG IM vs Prime - LG-IM Sweeps 5-0
G1: LGIM 1-0 Prime Losira vs. Maru G2: LGM 2-0 Prime Losira vs. Marineking (Losira now 2-0, must swap out) G3: LGIM 3-0 Prime Nestea vs. Byun G4 LGIM 4-0 Prime Nestea vs. Classic (Nestea now 2-0, must swap out) G5 LGIM 5-0 Prime SeeD vs. Creator
Example 2 - The same match but with a much closer result: LG IM 5-4 Prime
G1: LGIM 1-0 Prime Losira vs. Maru G2: LGIM 2-0 Prime Losira vs. Marineking (Losira now 2-0, must swap out) G3: LGIM 2-1 Prime Nestea vs. Byun G4: LGIM 2-2 Prime Seed vs. Byun (Byun now 2-0, must swap out) G5: LGIM 3-2 Prime Nestea vs. Classic G6: LGIM 3-3 Prime Nestea vs. Creator G7: LGIM 3-4 Prime SeeD vs. Creator (Creator 2-0, must swap out) G8: LGIM 4-4 Prime MVP vs. Terius G9: LGIM 5-4 Prime MVP vs. Lucy
What I love about this format is that it adheres to the 6 advantages mentioned above. It also maintains the same style or building a story as the AK/winner’s format while adding a bit more depth to the strategy of which players to field and when. A team can not rely on a single ace player to win the match, they must have at least 2, and a seriously consistent sniper to get a 5-0.
Something else I would like to suggest for the OP’s format if it were to be incorporated into a league:
One thing I did not see mentioned as a possibility (and something I think more leagues should include) is the mechanic of home/away games.
A team league that hosted 16 teams which played 2 matches a week over an 8 week period would allow a 2 month season where each team plays each other twice. This allows for teams to prove themselves twice per season prior to playoffs and more versatility with a home/away system. Perhaps when a team is away they are required to announce their first player on the first map first, or their entire 4 player roster first and allow the home team to decide accordingly.
Each team gets the home advantage against every opponent. It adds a layer of strategy to the team player-fielding meta game through the entire season. It also maintains the similar level of strategy in how a team fields their players seen in the AK/winners format. You can still use a player to snipe for a specific map, specific race, specific player, etc depending on whether or not you're the home team for that match.
The criticism is fair:
1. More complicated than pre-seeding+ace of PL and winner-stay of WL 2. More downtime as team determines players in phase 2/ viewers tries to grasp whats going on next. No Im not saying it's hard to understand but people complains about everything regarding viewer experience 3. a bo9 PL match features maximum 9 different players from a single team this format features maximum 5. you cant argue about this 4. see above
For the strength that you list: 1. no thing as linear as pre-seeding+ace of PL and winner-stay of WL 2. you require a FIX number of players. Now that it's worse than PL in variety, it's not better than WL either in term of creating momentum 3. agree 4. agree, but as much as people hating one-man-band, they would kill to see a starting AK 5. SPL/GSTL all bo1. I find ace match/reversed AK a better storyline 6. agree
The bottom line is that this format will not provide as much entertainment as proleague/winnersleague. It features the two's core characteristic (players variety for PL and serial winning for WL) but doesnt honor them to the maximum; thus being inferior no matter how fair it is.
Not sure if this has been brought up, but I know a few people have said about getting "more faces" since this format (at least in the BO7) would limit to 4 players for each team.
But what if you simply added a rule where for the 2nd round you were allowed to sub for one of your winners, or even had to sub for one of your winners which could get a 5th player involved?
I mean in reality seeing 4 players vs. 6 isn't much different. And if people are that worried about not seeing new faces then the league could even put in some rules where the same players can't play 3 weeks in a row or something like that.
Essentially if the hang up on this idea is the player variety, there are some ways to work around that. I think it is a real good idea, and would love to see it used especially the situation that ended up 3-1 and getting the 3-0.
Hmm where to begin.... I like this idea and it is an interesting alternative.
First let's talk about some of the criticism thus far.
1. "This format is complicated." How is it complicated? It's a linear match format that involves BO1s and players are eliminated after losing. In terms of the progression of the match, the only difference is you’re seeing a different winner each round. Obviously, it’s a separate BO1. Sure, the format requires 1 or 2 additional rules to stipulate a team going up 3-1 (in a BO7) in the first round, but let's be honest.... if you can't understand that I doubt you're getting much out of watching an SC2 match in the first place.
2. "This format will take longer than other formats." Yes, the AK/winners format has the potential for being the most time efficient -if- the winning team is capable of a 5-0. In the grand scheme of things this does not happen very often. So I really don't think it's worth talking about. Both the OP’s format and the AK style format have the potential for going to 9 games, or being finished in 5. If you compared the format between two highly skilled teams I’m quite sure there would be little time difference even if you had them play each format 50 times.
As for those talking about the pro league style with multiple BO3s, or a variation with BO3s -and- AK/winner’s formatted rounds in a single match; these formats will obviously take longer as they feature roughly the same amount of players playing each other in more than one game.
3. You can’t feature as many players with this format.” What? In any standard (commonly used) format where you require 5 of 9 wins, you will only ever see a max of 5 players from a single team.
4. “We won’t see as many B team players with this format.” In this format you would require a minimum of 5 games played by 5 players win or lose to start out the match. A top heavy team in the AK/winner’s format can get away with winning 5-0 by sending their ace player in first. So you definitely don’t see any B teamers there, except from the losing team perhaps. With the OP’s format you might have 1 top heavy team with 1 or 2 ‘ace’ players and 3 ‘average’ masters players play a team of 5 ‘average’ players. With his format you atleast get to see 5 players from each team play regardless; even if the second team were to get 5-0’d.
Alternately, Pro League’s format you see the same amount of players fielded in a BO9 as you would here, there are just more games played from each person because of BO3s. This also makes the match longer overall and thus harder to cover in a time efficient and cohesive manner.
So... now let’s talk about the strengths of this match format. 1. It allows for a linear match format - you’re casting a series of BO1s, just as you do in the winners/AK format. Easy to cast and cover cohesively and entirely in a time efficient manner. 2. You require a minimum of 5 players participation from either team in a BO9. This guarantees we see more than just a team’s ‘Ace’ dominating an entire match. 3. If the team is top heavy, and in a BO9 is down 1-4 after the first round, their ace still has the potential of building the heroic comeback reverse all kill in the 2nd/3rd rounds. 4. If one team is simply far superior than the other, you will see a resulting 5-0, but you’ll know that the entire team worked together to make that 5-0, not just their ace player all killing. 5. The matches are BO1s, so you can cast them in succession, build the hype and importance of a certain player winning or being eliminated before round 2 (especially if the series is close). This would be done in a very similar fashion to the AK/winner’s format. In round 2 of a close match, the storyline can shift to focus on the remaining winners or ace players ability to pull through for their team. 6. Strategical depth of who to field on what map verse which player is increased because there are a minimum number of players required to be fielded in round 1. I.E. Map specific snipers, verse race/MU specific snipers, vs player/player style specific snipers, vs pairing your team’s ‘ace’ vs the others to knock him out in Rd. 1 and so on on.
The only other way or format I know of to accomplish -all- 6 advantages above is with the following: + Show Spoiler +
You take the AK/winner’s format and add 1 stipulation: A player can only win a maximum of 2 games and then must be rotated out for a new player.
Example 1 - In a BO9 - Team LG IM vs Prime - LG-IM Sweeps 5-0
G1: LGIM 1-0 Prime Losira vs. Maru G2: LGM 2-0 Prime Losira vs. Marineking (Losira now 2-0, must swap out) G3: LGIM 3-0 Prime Nestea vs. Byun G4 LGIM 4-0 Prime Nestea vs. Classic (Nestea now 2-0, must swap out) G5 LGIM 5-0 Prime SeeD vs. Creator
Example 2 - The same match but with a much closer result: LG IM 5-4 Prime
G1: LGIM 1-0 Prime Losira vs. Maru G2: LGIM 2-0 Prime Losira vs. Marineking (Losira now 2-0, must swap out) G3: LGIM 2-1 Prime Nestea vs. Byun G4: LGIM 2-2 Prime Seed vs. Byun (Byun now 2-0, must swap out) G5: LGIM 3-2 Prime Nestea vs. Classic G6: LGIM 3-3 Prime Nestea vs. Creator G7: LGIM 3-4 Prime SeeD vs. Creator (Creator 2-0, must swap out) G8: LGIM 4-4 Prime MVP vs. Terius G9: LGIM 5-4 Prime MVP vs. Lucy
What I love about this format is that it adheres to the 6 advantages mentioned above. It also maintains the same style or building a story as the AK/winner’s format while adding a bit more depth to the strategy of which players to field and when. A team can not rely on a single ace player to win the match, they must have at least 2, and a seriously consistent sniper to get a 5-0.
Something else I would like to suggest for the OP’s format if it were to be incorporated into a league:
One thing I did not see mentioned as a possibility (and something I think more leagues should include) is the mechanic of home/away games.
A team league that hosted 16 teams which played 2 matches a week over an 8 week period would allow a 2 month season where each team plays each other twice. This allows for teams to prove themselves twice per season prior to playoffs and more versatility with a home/away system. Perhaps when a team is away they are required to announce their first player on the first map first, or their entire 4 player roster first and allow the home team to decide accordingly.
Each team gets the home advantage against every opponent. It adds a layer of strategy to the team player-fielding meta game through the entire season. It also maintains the similar level of strategy in how a team fields their players seen in the AK/winners format. You can still use a player to snipe for a specific map, specific race, specific player, etc depending on whether or not you're the home team for that match.
The criticism is fair:
1. More complicated than pre-seeding+ace of PL and winner-stay of WL 2. More downtime as team determines players in phase 2/ viewers tries to grasp whats going on next. No Im not saying it's hard to understand but people complains about everything regarding viewer experience 3. a bo9 PL match features maximum 9 different players from a single team this format features maximum 5. you cant argue about this 4. see above
For the strength that you list: 1. no thing as linear as pre-seeding+ace of PL and winner-stay of WL 2. you require a FIX number of players. Now that it's worse than PL in variety, it's not better than WL either in term of creating momentum 3. agree 4. agree, but as much as people hating one-man-band, they would kill to see a starting AK 5. SPL/GSTL all bo1. I find ace match/reversed AK a better storyline 6. agree
The bottom line is that this format will not provide as much entertainment as proleague/winnersleague. It features the two's core characteristic (players variety for PL and serial winning for WL) but doesnt honor them to the maximum; thus being inferior no matter how fair it is.
Your points are 'fair' and accurate. I just don't think they are an even comparison between all 3 formats. Every point brought up outside of Criticism #1 and your point towards strength #1 (they're kind of the same issue for you) can be made against AK/WL format just as much as the OP's format in comparison to the PL format. This is an issue because you can't turn around and make any of the same comparisons against AK/WL format; which tells me the OP's format is a pretty damn good combination of both. If not a good combo of both, then perhaps just a solid improvement on AK/WL format.
Essentially.... Criticisms: 1. Yes, you can make this argument. It is a relatively minuscule difference which does make it -slightly- more complicated. Okay. More complicated does not equate to -too- complicated. Maybe it's a downside, but not one solely large enough to turn away from the format. 2. More downtime... You can say this about literally every other league, event, match, etc. It is a reality of life and the same kind of downtime is had in AK/WL format. That is why you either cast from replays or hire good casters who can entertain and build story/plot line to cover the downtime. Yes, people complain about everything. That happens when the education is not there to build the understanding. Either way the same thing could be said for AK/WL format with downtime of choosing the next player and map. 3. Agree. But again the exact same can be said for both the OP's format and AK/WL in comparison to only PL format. 4. Same as 3.
Strengths: 1. Well, the OP -is- as linear of a format. It's one match after another. It's just not as fluid as a pre-seeded PL or winner stays in AK format. I think that applies more to Crit #1 than anything else. But let's just say I agree here too. Similar, but con #2. 2. Yes, less variety than PL - something already stated. But you can't say it's not better than AK/WL format in creating momentum. It just happens in a different way. A way that is more similar or the same to PL format in the first round, and the same as AK/WL in the second round. If you agree fundamentally with 3-6, then you must also agree here. You get the strengths of AK/WL and with more variety than AK/WL. You get -potentially- less variety than PL (IF a match in PL goes to Game 9 in a BO9) Again, the downside really only applies in comparison to the PL format. 3. agree 4. Agree 5. OP's format allows for reverse AK (and standard AK, just happens the same as in PL, not the true way of AK/WL). It is a great storyline. It also can happen in AK/WL format, and yes it is somewhat more likely in that format. But again you can't get that in PL format, so it is a downside only in comparison to PL. 6. Agree
Basically - Yes, the OP's format is not as polarizing as either PL or AK/WL format. But the OP's format gains you all of the strengths of the AK/WL format while eliminating some of the downsides it has in comparison to PL by incorporating features from PL's format. Yeah, when you compare that back to PL there are a couple downsides as listed above. Far less downsides than if you compare AK/WL to PL format. Either way they're so negligible that with solid coverage and presentation the OP's format could be just as successful as the other two.
On February 22 2013 13:36 FLuE wrote: But what if you simply added a rule where for the 2nd round you were allowed to sub for one of your winners, or even had to sub for one of your winners which could get a 5th player involved?
This would strengthen the role of the team's sniper or a 'map specialist' enormously. Just exchange him after his job is done. I am not saying this is bad per se, just that it would change the character of the competition a lot.
The proponents would call it 'tactical depth' or the 'special team strength' like in football. While objectors would simply call it an ugly cheese fest, robbing them from actual high caliber games.
On February 22 2013 12:51 WinterTV wrote: You take the AK/winner’s format and add 1 stipulation: A player can only win a maximum of 2 games and then must be rotated out for a new player.
What I love about this format is that it adheres to the 6 advantages mentioned above. It also maintains the same style or building a story as the AK/winner’s format while adding a bit more depth to the strategy of which players to field and when. A team can not rely on a single ace player to win the match, they must have at least 2, and a seriously consistent sniper to get a 5-0.
This system feels very wrong and destroys the 'story of the match' IMO.
Say you have a guy playing fantastic, seemingly unbeatable. 'Who can stop him today?" "Well, nobody. But who cares, he is off to the bench now. Two games max..."
Where is the sense in preparing a sniper for an opponent player if he can not continue to play anyway?
It sounds really cool, but I think it makes preparing much harder than for Proleague system. There you simple now i will face opponent x on map y. In you system you will now opponent x on map y, but after this it´s so hard to predict. That is similar to the All-Kill Format. Also Snipping would get very hard after round one, because you have to win your first round and then choose the right map. So for Choaches this might give them awesome opportunities, but I will like it would be very random after round one. And those All Kill Players would get more important than snipers, which would take a hugh fun factor from proleague. But still I would like to see a league like this.
Probably more likely to end up in more games, possibly too many games too often and also allows for fewer different players as the current Proleague Bo7 will see 14 different players play in 7 matches at max which is better imo. But it can work for leagues with fewer teams or fewer matches (i.e. knockout team league).
I have the same problem with it as others said ealier. In team games, you want to see any many players as possible, this is a chance for a small players to shine, do some "wow" moments and take wins which noone expected.
However, in smaller clan leagues, amatuer leagues, i would love this.
I really like the format! The one thing I don't like is how, like in SPL format, there's no potential for sniping players. Seeing Tails go in and take out Mvp with a funky build is something that can't be done in this format, since he might've been sent out on the "wrong" map and lost to Losira earlier.
Still cool though, would prefer it to both current GSTL and SPL formats.
While it looks entertaining. it seems like there's way too much varience in set lengths. There could be a quick 3-0 in say 30 min, or else there could be a long drawn out 5-4 that could last over 2 hours. Doesn't seem practical for a proper league to use this format when they have timeslots to fill.
I think this is pretty simple in text format, and quite intuitive if viewed.
Problem is it guarantees that only 8 players will appear per match, as opposed to the 12, potentially 14 of the current proleague format. I think it's more dynamic to test the depth of the teams with the current setup.
On March 22 2013 02:19 realbutter wrote: While it looks entertaining. it seems like there's way too much varience in set lengths. There could be a quick 3-0 in say 30 min, or else there could be a long drawn out 5-4 that could last over 2 hours. Doesn't seem practical for a proper league to use this format when they have timeslots to fill.
I don't think you understood the format. Let's say a team-league match is a bo7. In an all-kill format, it could go anywhere from a 4-0 to a 4-3. Similarly, with proleague format, it could be a 4-0, up to getting a 3-3 and the ace players from each team facing each other in the final match. A bo7 in the suggested format has the potential for just as much variance in run-time, from a fast 4-0 to a long 4-3. The only thing this suggested format changes is how the players are chosen for each game within the match.
Just bumping up this thread seeing as there's been talk about team league formats again recently. I still think the Waseda-style has potential in SC2. However, I have a second idea inspired by the infamous Hybrid BW/SC2 pro-league. One which allows for players to pull their weight without scoring all-kills, if people don't like that sort of thing.
Simply the idea is this... split the match into 3 rounds, where each round is like a little mini team league match. The winner of the overall team match is then the winner of the bo3 in rounds. What exactly each round is can change, depending on what variation of the format you use. For the moment, I will discuss an example of the Winners League Variation w/ 6+ players per team.
In the 6-man Winners League variation, each round is a bo3 winners league match. Being a best of 3, the round is over once a team has 2 kills. The team who gets these 2 kills is the winner the round and gets 1 point in the overall team match. At this point, both of the players are eliminated and cannot be used in subsequent rounds.
Round 2 progresses the same way. Each team send out a starting player and a small bo3 winners league match is played out. The winning team of that round gets a point in the overall team match. If at the end of Round 2, one team has won both of the rounds, then they are declared the winner of the overall match. If the two teams won one round each, then they play an ace Round 3 using the same system.
Match 1 of Round 1 is picked the same way a typical winners league match is played - the coaches are told the opening map in advance and they each select a player to begin; this match-up is then revealed ahead of time, allowing them to prepare. In each subsequent game, the losing team selects the next player and map, as expected.
For Match 1 of Rounds 2 and 3, there is three ways it can be done: - Both coaches can simultaneously select a player blindly for a randomly chosen map (out of the remaining pool), - The team that won the most recent game (and hence the last round) announce their player first, then the losing team selects the map and next player to counter, as usual. - The team that won the most recent game (and hence the last round) announce their player AND choose the map, then the losing team selects the next player to counter.
The down-side to this format as described is that, as mentioned, it requires each team to have a minimum of 6 players available, and the map pool to be at least 9 maps. However, these number can be dropped to the more standard 5 players and 7 maps with a change to the way Round 3 functions. The alternative is that instead of the ace round being another bo3 winners league, it could simply be single 1 on 1 ace match. If this was the case however, it would be essential that the ace match was blind-picked simultaneously (as above), not counter-picked. The player requirement can be dropped even further to 4 if Round 3 allows the reuse of players, however this re-opens the possibility of a player winning through an all-kill... which kinda defeats the point.
(Example 1 - Winners League Ver, 6-Man - Team Liquid vs. Evil Geniuses)
Round 1 TLO <Map A> ThorZaIN TLO <Map B> JYP Zenio <Map C> JYP First round goes to Team Liquid
Round 2 HerO <Map D> Stephano Ret <Map E> Stephano Second round goes to Evil Geniuses
Round 3 TaeJa <Map F> Jaedong TaeJa <Map G> aLive Third round goes to Team Liquid
Team Liquid wins 2-1 [4-3]!
So this example demonstrates a few things. Firstly, it demonstrates that there is still potential for players to perform acts of heroism, as seen with TaeJa and Stephano stomping their respective rounds - but there is absolutely no chance of one player single-handedly all-killing, because they are capped at a maximum of 2 wins. The worst case would be 2 players winning it for their team in a 4-0 fashion, 2-0 a piece.
Something else that's more obvious with an example is some of the team strategies that this format can potentially introduce. Because players are capped at 2 wins and can only play in the round that they are fielded in, this makes managing your players for particular parts of the match extremely important. What would have happened if Liquid fielded TaeJa and HerO in round 1? Yeah, chances are they would dominate that round and get their, but then what? They would no longer be available to use in Round 2, and most important, the ace matches at the end.
Another thing to consider is that players who are deployed in match 1 or 2 of a particular round have the potential to score 2 kills, where as the player who is deployed in match 3 will always only play one match. This adds another level of management, planning and strategy, because using a player to clean up the final match of a round - while potentially scoring the team a point, will restrict them to playing in only one game. Do you really want to use your strongest all-round players there, when they could score 2 kills later on? Or would it be better to use a specific match sniper?
Lastly, there is the impact of winning rounds strongly on player availability. At the end of Round 1, both teams had lost 'access' to two players - TLO/Zenio and ThorZaIN/JYP. But in Round 2, because Stephano 2-0'd that round, Liquid lost two players HerO/Ret for use in Round 3, where as EG only lost one Stephano. It's another dimension to the format to consider.
(Example 2 - Winners League Ver, 6-Man - Mouzsports vs. Millenium)
Round 1 HeRoMaRinE <Map A> Goswser Illusion <Map B> Goswser First round goes to Millenium
Round 2 MaNa <Map C> ForGG HasuObs <Map D> ForGG Second round goes to Millenium
Millenium wins 2-0 [4-0]!
This example demonstrates one potential drawback of this particular format (which is necessary for me to point out - I am trying to make a somewhat balanced argument =P), which is the variability of match length. It's possible for the team match to be over in as few as 4 matches, or as many as 9 matches. This is a wider range than a standard Bo7 (4-7) and Bo9 (5-9). Some tourney organizers and viewers may not like that from an administration standpoint. However, it can be solved by restricting the ace match to a single game instead of a Bo3 series (See Example 4 below).
(Example 3 - Winners League Ver, 6-Man - StarTale vs. LG Incredible Miracle)
Round 1 Golden <Map A> Squirtle Hack <Map B> Squirtle First round goes to LG Incredible Miracle
Round 2 Curious <Map C> Ruin Curious <Map D> YoDa Sound <Map E> YoDa Second round goes to StarTale
Round 3 Bomber <Map F> Seed Life <Map G> Seed Life <Map H> First Third round goes to StarTale
StarTale wins 2-1 [4-4]!
This is an example of where the map score is actually tied at 4-4, yet a winner is determined through rounds. Personally I don't have a problem with this situation, but I know there is some people out there who don't like this sort of thing - it's worth pointing out.
Despite the flaws though, I think this is a potentially excellent format, as it offers plenty of potential variety, removes the chance of just 1 player winning it for the team by himself, and introduces a slew of interesting new strategic depth to fielding players.
But you don't need to necessarily use the 6-man variant...
(Example 4 - Winners League Ver, 5-Man - KT Rolster vs. SK Telecom T1)
Round 1 Motive <Map A> ParalyzE Crazy <Map B> ParalyzE Crazy <Map C> soO First round goes to KT Rolster
Round 2 Action <Map D> FanTaSy Zest <Map E> FanTaSy Zest <Map F> BeSt Second round goes to SK Telecom T1
Round 3 Flash <Map G> Rain Third round goes to KT Rolster
KT Rolster wins 2-1 [4-3]!
This is the 5-man variation, where the ace match is actually just a single game rather than another full bo3 set. There is two main advantages of this version... firstly, you only need 5 players per team and 7 maps instead of 6 players per team and 9 maps. Also, the game range drops from 4-9 to 4-7, which is exactly the same as normal best of 7 - it works identically in terms of scheduling and game count to both existing SPL formats.
I'll make another post with some examples of other non-winners-league variations you can do on this soon.
So if you don't want to take the winner's league approach, it's also possible to take a proleague approach or a waseda-style approach.
In proleague style it is as above, but instead of each round being a bo3 winners league, it is a set of 3 individual matches. Coaches are given a list of maps separated into rounds. They then assign players to play on the particular maps blindly and the match-ups are later revealed. Either there is a 3 rounds of 3 matches with no player reuse, which demands a minimum of 9 players per team... or 2 rounds of 3 matches + a single ace match with no player reuse, which demands a minimum of 7 players per team. If player reuse is allowed in the final round, then the minimum number of players required is 6 in either case.
Honestly, this one is a pretty bad format, but I'm putting it here for completion sake. I'd be kinda sad if a tourney ever actually used this. There is an enormous variance in length (4 minimum, 9 maximum) with no potential for individual storylines, and plenty of potential for up to TEN players to have their preparation go completely wasted. Additionally, it's not even possible unless both teams have at least 9 available players... which is exceedingly rare outside of Korea. It's also extremely redundant compared to the normal pro-league format. It's just the normal format with arbitrary round divisions put in place.
On the upside, the variety is absolutely insane. Plus, the division into rounds, while arbitrary, provides an extra level of strategy when fielding players - it is worth while trying to distribute players evenly by skill, forcing coaches to make trade-off decisions with regards to the maps.
Isn't this very similar to the proleague special with all the joke teams? It seemed ok there. Not too complicated, but I'm not convinced it really adds much, I'm not convinced you really get the best of both worlds
EPT
Sniper <GSL Akilon Flats> 
Hack
Finale <KeSPA Neo Planet S> 
