EPTLooks good otherwise!
WCS 2013 Format, Players, Prizes and Point Details - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Incanus
Canada695 Posts
Looks good otherwise! | ||
|
Paramo
Mexico138 Posts
| ||
|
xuanzue
Colombia1747 Posts
On April 17 2013 08:52 Plansix wrote: I don't think GOM entered a bad deal and people are getting to hung up on the prize money. The winner of the season is guaranteed at least another $5,000 for the season finals, if not more. There is plenty of money to go around if you get in the top 5 of the season. And lets be frank, the winning of Korea is likely to win the Season finals too. tell it that to rain | ||
|
ES_JohnClark
United States1121 Posts
Not sure if its best to start a new thread if there will be comments on it.. if so, I will consider it then..but figure it's worth a look in here. To follow this up, I will be FINALLY putting together an info graphic with full details on how a proper tournament rankings/points system should work. Something that I created year ago for another gaming company that was looking to globalize a points system to determine World Champions.. called the Global Points System (GPS). Don't mind the title of the graphic.. I am a designer... I make points through text and art..  that's my excuse!![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hsmDAYU.png) | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On April 17 2013 00:44 Acronysis wrote: I like what I see. 20,000 is certainly not as high as it once was, but I am completely fine with that. There is still a good chunk of change (40k) for the 1st place for season finals which is nothing to complain about, and I'm glad the 16-32nd players get 1500 instead of the 300 reported earlier, substantially different. I honestly have no idea if thats considered sustainable for players or not, but it seems reasonable enough. Can't wait to get into the heart of this and see some awesome games! For GSL (before WCS), Ro32 players got nearly 1.5k USD too. Click. Anyway, not to be one that always brings down the negativity (lots already talked about this) but we'll see how things goes. The gist of what I like to post is that: 1. Was GOMTV okay with their previous prize pool and model? Did GOMTV want to keep their current prize pool but Blizzard decided to do it this way (10k for 2nd, 20k for first)? 2. If GOMTV was okay with their 4-5 GSLs a year, and prize pool of 50k/20k for 1st/2nd, then that kind of is too bad for Koreans who do not earn salary (this was discussed on SotG before but the reality of the situation is that most people do not earn salary while progaming... maybe sponsors or teams pay for their living expenses but the majority of money earned is from tournament earnings). To be fair, it is an experiment and if it works out well, the prize pool can increase. Unlike MOBAs which are sustainable off of micro transactions (for example, with Dota 2, most people buy tournament tickets just so they can get a chance at getting tournament items... I honestly do not know if people would buy tournament tickets if it weren't for the items, mainly because most major tournaments are uploaded for free on Youtube by Tobi himself anyway >.>; edit - Though if you want the replays, you do have to buy the Tournament Pass), something like SC2 may have a hard time being sustainable. BW kicked off really well in South Korea mainly because there was no competition at the time, and "eSports" was a relatively new thing (and seeing a game like BW on TV was kind of neat and cool, you felt cool watching it on TV in front of others!!) but now it's hard to say. Which is where I got my new idea - So Blizzard is releasing a new card game (Hearthstone) that is played on PC and mobile devices( it's not the traditional tabletop card game playing, it's a digital game). What if the new card game competed with something like Magic: The Gathering (Magic is epic, has huge prize money tournaments regularly that is 40k for 1st place, 20k for 2nd, etc)? What if you have a chance of getting super rare cards... by watching the GSL!!!! Instant $$$ for Blizzard, and eSports is suddenly sustainable. Heck, I don't care what I'd have to do to get that holographic ultimate ghost rare Zergling Card, I'd play or watch <insert something that I don't even normally do> to get it. But yeah... Blizzard should think of connecting something with their games to make things more sustainable. They can't really do anything like Dota 2 (for example) for SC2, because the game isn't built off of cosmetics really. However, if the connect their card game with SC2 (like, buy a season pass for the GSL, and you have a chance to get <insert ultimate ghost rare card #123>). Now they just need to make Hearthstone such a deep and fun game that it competes with MTG. (MTG is a really really deep game. Card games in general are more "meta game" type games where the gist of how you win or lose comes down to preparation and deck building, so you may not really see it in actual games themselves but it shows when you have consistent top champions that win over hundreds of thousands of dollars over their career of Magic playing.) Anyway, just my random thoughts (which could totally work >.>...). Cross promotion (especially when Blizzard is doing it for their own games) works. If you look at Team Fortress 2 (for example), some people buy games they don't even play on Steam just because they come with exclusive Team Fortress 2 hats. On April 17 2013 01:07 m0ck wrote: There are too many proplayers for too little money in Korea. That is not Blizzards fault, but rather due to the reduction in audience for SC2 from SC:BW. The Korean scene will have to adapt. Probably some players will have to find another way of making a living. If the audience for blizzard is outside of Korea, why should the money go to subsidizing the Korean scene? To ensure that they will stay the strongest forever? I do have to agree with this too. TBH, a lot of GOMTV's profits were probably from overseas viewers anyway (I'm not sure if sponsors alone can keep GOMTV running major tournaments with huge prize pools). Still, just want to point out that it is too bad for the Korean scene because it was kind of an abrupt thing that just happened (no one really knew until after GSL 2013 Season 2 began). Oh well, it is mainly due to the SC2 scene (I mean BW is still beating SC2 in PC Bangs, SC2 is that unpopular in South Korea compared to other games). Blizzard can fix all of this... As long as they make the best card game ever to exist... with put a ton of cross promotion (again, if I could get a limited edition, a true limited edition, <insert mega ultra ghost ultimate rare Zergling> card from getting a GSL pass, then I'd do it), and make it huge in Korea! | ||
|
rename
Estonia329 Posts
On April 17 2013 08:52 Plansix wrote: I don't think GOM entered a bad deal and people are getting to hung up on the prize money. The winner of the season is guaranteed at least another $5,000 for the season finals, if not more. There is plenty of money to go around if you get in the top 5 of the season. And lets be frank, the winning of Korea is likely to win the Season finals too. Not really, the season finals, being a one weekend affair, is much more about bracket luck, how much jetlag affects you ( in the tournaments that are not in your region ) and favours safer playstyles limiting the amount of builds. The best players will always be crowned in leagues, i have no idea why blizzard is under the delusion that their weekend thingie is "fiercer" than code S. On April 17 2013 12:28 ES_JohnClark wrote: This is something I discussed on today's Climbing The Ladder Show with ChanmanV and Sir Scoots. I posted a graphic that I made that outlines the problem with a 'raw points' total to determine a 'ranking' of skill. + Show Spoiler + Not sure if its best to start a new thread if there will be comments on it.. if so, I will consider it then..but figure it's worth a look in here. To follow this up, I will be FINALLY putting together an info graphic with full details on how a proper tournament rankings/points system should work. Something that I created year ago for another gaming company that was looking to globalize a points system to determine World Champions.. called the Global Points System (GPS). Don't mind the title of the graphic.. I am a designer... I make points through text and art.. that's my excuse! Your logic makes a huge leap with the assumption that there will be "Tier 1 online events". I really cant see blizzard considering any online event aside from Teamliquid Starleague - and even that will likely be Tier 2. So while i agree that points system is bad - giving MLG winners 750pts, and Iron Squid winners 250pts is not part of the problem. | ||
|
TestSubject893
United States774 Posts
On April 17 2013 12:28 ES_JohnClark wrote: This is something I discussed on today's Climbing The Ladder Show with ChanmanV and Sir Scoots. I posted a graphic that I made that outlines the problem with a 'raw points' total to determine a 'ranking' of skill. Not sure if its best to start a new thread if there will be comments on it.. if so, I will consider it then..but figure it's worth a look in here. To follow this up, I will be FINALLY putting together an info graphic with full details on how a proper tournament rankings/points system should work. Something that I created year ago for another gaming company that was looking to globalize a points system to determine World Champions.. called the Global Points System (GPS). Don't mind the title of the graphic.. I am a designer... I make points through text and art.. that's my excuse!+ Show Spoiler + You either don't understand the point system or your graphic is unclear. You don't get separate points group stage and bracket stage in challenger league, and you don't get separate points for each group stage in premier league. Additionally, you seem to think there will be dozens of non-WCS events with points per season and frankly we have nothing that indicates that will be the case. To top it all off, I think the we could pretty easily argue that these sample results are far from realistic. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 17 2013 12:53 TestSubject893 wrote: You either don't understand the point system or your graphic is unclear. You don't get separate points group stage and bracket stage in challenger league, and you don't get separate points for each group stage in premier league. Additionally, you seem to think there will be dozens of non-WCS events with points per season and frankly we have nothing that indicates that will be the case. To top it all off, I think the we could pretty easily argue that these sample results are far from realistic. But this is what we do at TL. People release systems for events and we make massive, paragraph long posts about how it is bad for Esports and will destroy SC2 as we know it. I mean, from what I can tell from this thread, the prize pool alone is going to destroy the Korean economy and birthrate. Because if there is anything I have learned, its that the members of TL can accurately predict what is good for bad for SC2 without error. Ever. | ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
On April 17 2013 12:28 ES_JohnClark wrote: This is something I discussed on today's Climbing The Ladder Show with ChanmanV and Sir Scoots. I posted a graphic that I made that outlines the problem with a 'raw points' total to determine a 'ranking' of skill. Not sure if its best to start a new thread if there will be comments on it.. if so, I will consider it then..but figure it's worth a look in here. To follow this up, I will be FINALLY putting together an info graphic with full details on how a proper tournament rankings/points system should work. Something that I created year ago for another gaming company that was looking to globalize a points system to determine World Champions.. called the Global Points System (GPS). Don't mind the title of the graphic.. I am a designer... I make points through text and art.. that's my excuse!I understand why you're concerned, but I don't think they ever said that every non-WCS event will award points. My understanding was that it would be mostly events like Dreamhack, MLG etc. Did they say anywhere that online tournaments would award WCS points? | ||
|
ES_JohnClark
United States1121 Posts
Again.. missing the point of the points and why those points are not really points.  I think you dont understand my graphic. I simply took 3 players who played in differnet events.. ALL of which are events that earn WCS points. All of those points are applied to the ranking system btw. Unless you can show me where players that play in Tier 1 events earn points that dont get added to their finish in a WCS event.. (i may have missed that part honestly).. but the graphic assumes that all points are earned based on your finish at any WCS 'sanctioned' event. Also.. I am not showing dozens of non-WCS events.. and that still does not defeat my point. I think maybe I should wait to comment more until I show you how a proper points system that takes into acount your 'actual' finish (not 4th through 8th getting same points!) and it's relative to how many events vs. how well you did in each... and not heavily weighted on just HOW MANY events you can/will attend.. regardless of how poorly you may do in many of them. If i missed anythign about the Challenger points being separate from the Premier Points or the Non-wcs points.. fill me in.. but I am pretty sure I did not..considering the fact that they have them weighted in an attempt to avoid the scenerio that I setup.. usually means they are doing this because ALL of the events count ALL points toward your OVERALL points total. | ||
|
ES_JohnClark
United States1121 Posts
| ||
|
TestSubject893
United States774 Posts
On April 17 2013 13:26 ES_JohnClark wrote: i never said a bunch of online events.. in fact..they never said.. as you guys are pointing out. They list that there will be 'several' non-WCS events that are 'sanctioned'.. Again.. my graphic is just pointing out how its possible that with 'raw points' awarded based on participation and not really on your finish/placement at an event.. it will reward players that finish in the middle of the pack in 10 overall tournaments while punishing those that finish in top 20 of only 4 events they choose to play in.. THUS.. in some cases. a player that played 10 tournaments and finished shitty will be considered higher in the points rankings that a player that was clearly better ..but was only able to compete in 4 of the 10 events. Its dishonest to say the first 2 players on the list are "clearly better" than the last. Coming in top 9 in 6 events the caliber of Dreamhack or MLG in the span of one season would be insane. I'm not sure anyone has ever even done that in a 3 month period, and yet you claim that this hypothetical run would be clearly undeserving of so many WCS points? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Also, its still unclear if your graphic is supposed to be over the course of one season or all 3 for the year. Either way it is incorrect. | ||
|
ES_JohnClark
United States1121 Posts
Im not comparing tournaments..thats up to WCS to decide on how to 'tier' them.. which my system also does..but its based on math (# of top 32 ranked players that enter, size, etc)... I am simply laying out a very very possible scenerio that could happen based on the fact that the numbers are NOT relative. I agree with you in a lot of what you said. My graphic is right now actually.. its only going off of what WCS has laid out. Notice that i do NOT give specific tournament names. because at this point ..either has WCS really.. so its only looking at the math of things. I did this in an hour today.. so its possible i added some things up wrong..but the point of the graphic is complete and right.. again.. based on what WCS has laid out (unless someone can show me where they say points for lower tiers wont count towards a players total points). | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
Is it really bad that a player who played in 6 non WCS tournaments and got top 10 in all of them earned more points than the guy who just did WCS? | ||
|
TestSubject893
United States774 Posts
On April 17 2013 13:40 ES_JohnClark wrote: again.. im only going by what WCS has laid out.. and notice the first part of the graphic that list their 'perceived' ranking. Im not comparing tournaments..thats up to WCS to decide on how to 'tier' them.. which my system also does..but its based on math (# of top 32 ranked players that enter, size, etc)... I am simply laying out a very very possible scenerio that could happen based on the fact that the numbers are NOT relative. I agree with you in a lot of what you said. My graphic is right now actually.. its only going off of what WCS has laid out. Notice that i do NOT give specific tournament names. because at this point ..either has WCS really.. so its only looking at the math of things. I did this in an hour today.. so its possible i added some things up wrong..but the point of the graphic is complete and right.. again.. based on what WCS has laid out (unless someone can show me where they say points for lower tiers wont count towards a players total points). You only get awarded points for regional WCS leagues once per season and yet you have player 1 getting points twice (or 3 times, its unclear if the last is supposed to be the global finals or not), player 2 getting points 3 times and player 3 getting points twice. Your graphic is incorrect. | ||
|
ES_JohnClark
United States1121 Posts
So.. assume this to be 1 season.. and lets say 11 total sanctioned WCS events (included non-WCS specific events that are sanctioned.. and lets say there are 6 of them.. which is very possible!) Notice the Open Qualifiers are not listed because according to the WCS release today..there are NO points awarded for those.. so i did not include them in the graphic. | ||
|
TestSubject893
United States774 Posts
On April 17 2013 13:44 ES_JohnClark wrote: my graphic looks at a single season.. ..it only includes 1 of each of the Premier level Group Stage and Bracket Stage events.. which is all that is listed in the graphic that WCS released today. So.. assume this to be 1 season.. and lets say 11 total sanctioned WCS events (included non-WCS specific events that are sanctioned.. and lets say there are 6 of them.. which is very possible!) Notice the Open Qualifiers are not listed because according to the WCS release today..there are NO points awarded for those.. so i did not include them in the graphic. Group stage and bracket stage are not separate events. They are the same events and only award points once between them. Are you even reading what I post? edit: And coming in top 10 in 6 global events you might attend in a 3 month span is insane. I'm not sure any player in the world right now could do that. | ||
|
rename
Estonia329 Posts
On April 17 2013 13:40 ES_JohnClark wrote: again.. im only going by what WCS has laid out.. and notice the first part of the graphic that list their 'perceived' ranking. Im not comparing tournaments..thats up to WCS to decide on how to 'tier' them.. which my system also does..but its based on math (# of top 32 ranked players that enter, size, etc)... I am simply laying out a very very possible scenerio that could happen based on the fact that the numbers are NOT relative. I agree with you in a lot of what you said. My graphic is right now actually.. its only going off of what WCS has laid out. Notice that i do NOT give specific tournament names. because at this point ..either has WCS really.. so its only looking at the math of things. I did this in an hour today.. so its possible i added some things up wrong..but the point of the graphic is complete and right.. again.. based on what WCS has laid out (unless someone can show me where they say points for lower tiers wont count towards a players total points). Try giving the specific tournament names and you will see how your graphs are the opposite of very very possible ( someone who cant get into Premier league in NA will constantly get top10 spots in events like MLG/Dreamhack ). Or just assumes playhem dailies will be tier2 and something like ESET UK Masters will be Tier 1 | ||
|
ES_JohnClark
United States1121 Posts
in the WCS graphic.. and ill go through it some more tomorrow.. headed to bed.... you notice that they have several 'STAGES" for each.. and each are either a Premier or Challenger Stage.. and unless otherwise noted.. EACH Stage.. is a seperate event with seperate points awarded. If that is not the case..then yes.. my graphic is wrong.. but my point is not still I think you guys are missing the issue here. Tell me.. a guy that finishes 5th at DH, 9th at MLG and 6th at an IEM event.. is that player a better player that finished 4th at DH, 5th at MLG and was not able to attend the IEM Event? This may be a better example for you guys. Answer that and we can then go to step 2 with the example. I think maybe may graphic was a bit overdone honestly.. but i wanted to avoid a lot of text. Oh.. and I very well could be wrong that each 'stage' of the series of events is a different event. Ill look into that more tomorrow. | ||
|
ES_JohnClark
United States1121 Posts
even if they get into top 10's (constantly, as you put it..which is an assumption you are asking me NOT to make).. the idea that you are rewarded points as 'raw' number.. meaning its just an arbitrary number thrown out there.. STILL does not mean that if you attend 2 less events then another player you wont be ranked LESS then that person (who finished 12th through 16th). I only used examples of 'finishes'.. not real players.. not real tournaments (minus what WCS laid out as possible events).. to show the MATH and how it can work against a player that can only attend 4 of 10 events.. while it helps a player that finishes worse (on average) .. but attends 7 of 10 events. its math guys | ||
| ||
