On June 10 2013 15:02 larse wrote: Korean websites are all saying Ro32 in OSL premier league will be the traditional BO1 !!
BO1!
Not sure how much I like this, tradition is important but bo1 has the potential to make upsets in the ro32 happen that shouldn't otherwise happen. WCS KR is already the most difficult region to play in, we don't need to make it more punishing.
Pretty much my thoughts. Forgo tradition for the sake of making the first round competition not completely stupid, please. This isn't BW.
I've never understood this at all. BW was just as unforgiving for cheese as HoTS is so what's the big deal? The better player should always and mostly will always win the first game in a Bo3, in which case it just means they go through rather than the other guy having a chance to bring it back.
Being the best means you have to be the best in all situations, not just "Best of" matches. It's about knowing when to prepare cheese and when to play it safe in a Bo1, if anything I'd say Bo1 leads to more interesting games as both players know everything is on the line and will fight harder for the game.
It's more about consistency within WCS, it doesn't make sense for me to have KR be the most competitive region and the most unforgiving region, when the other regions give the same amount of money. If this was just OSL I would be fine with it.
I've never valued the prestige of WCS so much. Why dont you just simply enjoy the OSL. Them Koreans will be compensated for the prize cut in a weekend tourney called season finals later
Sure I can enjoy the tournament as it doesn't affect me directly, I'll watch it regardless.
The issue I have is the Korean pros that aren't Kespa A-teamers with good salaries potentially being knocked out in the ro32 because of bo1 instead of bo3. It just seems unfair to me that WCS EU & AM players get second chances while the KR players don't. There are financial problems in a lot of eSF teams right now and making the results less consistent can only make their situations worse.
This isn't just the OSL anymore, this is the only individual league in Korea and what a lot of players rely on to make their money.
OSL and GSL. Id love to see dual league winners! We could finally start seeing those players who are flat out dominant since the leagues are becoming standardized although it would have been more interesting if the leagues were more separate in a sense that both require different paths to climb i.e. being in Code S in GSL doesn't necessary mean your in for the OSL vice versa.
On June 10 2013 15:02 larse wrote: Korean websites are all saying Ro32 in OSL premier league will be the traditional BO1 !!
BO1!
Not sure how much I like this, tradition is important but bo1 has the potential to make upsets in the ro32 happen that shouldn't otherwise happen. WCS KR is already the most difficult region to play in, we don't need to make it more punishing.
Pretty much my thoughts. Forgo tradition for the sake of making the first round competition not completely stupid, please. This isn't BW.
I've never understood this at all. BW was just as unforgiving for cheese as HoTS is so what's the big deal? The better player should always and mostly will always win the first game in a Bo3, in which case it just means they go through rather than the other guy having a chance to bring it back.
Being the best means you have to be the best in all situations, not just "Best of" matches. It's about knowing when to prepare cheese and when to play it safe in a Bo1, if anything I'd say Bo1 leads to more interesting games as both players know everything is on the line and will fight harder for the game.
It's more about consistency within WCS, it doesn't make sense for me to have KR be the most competitive region and the most unforgiving region, when the other regions give the same amount of money. If this was just OSL I would be fine with it.
I've never valued the prestige of WCS so much. Why dont you just simply enjoy the OSL. Them Koreans will be compensated for the prize cut in a weekend tourney called season finals later
Sure I can enjoy the tournament as it doesn't affect me directly, I'll watch it regardless.
The issue I have is the Korean pros that aren't Kespa A-teamers with good salaries potentially being knocked out in the ro32 because of bo1 instead of bo3. It just seems unfair to me that WCS EU & AM players get second chances while the KR players don't. There are financial problems in a lot of eSF teams right now and making the results less consistent can only make their situations worse.
This isn't just the OSL anymore, this is the only individual league in Korea and what a lot of players rely on to make their money.
Playing Bo1's is a different skill set than playing Bo3 or Bo5 or Bo7, that's also a different skill set than playing in team league proleague or winners league format. I don't see how we should validate one skill set over the other over some non-descriptive idea about fairness. Why Bo3? Why not Bo5? Or Bo7? Why 4 player groups and not 8 or 16 or 32 player group round robin if it really was to maximize sample size? Why have group picks which will skew the group instead of just matching by ELO? The idea that a larger sample size between players gives more accurate representation fails to take into account things like game sense, playing under pressure, and the length / stamina of the players. Longer formats favor some play styles over others too. A player that thrives in Bo5+ format with a super standard macro style might get knocked out in Bo1's by creative unpredictable play, and that player might lose to someone with extremely good game sense and defensive style, and that player might lose in a Bo3 against someone who plans the maps out.
The idea that players rely on it to make money is a different idea from the legitimacy of the competition. If you really wanted a format where you can maximize the money gained, that's dependent on how the prize money is distributed much more so than how the rounds are played out.
On June 10 2013 18:29 YyapSsap wrote: OSL and GSL. Id love to see dual league winners! We could finally start seeing those players who are flat out dominant since the leagues are becoming standardized although it would have been more interesting if the leagues were more separate in a sense that both require different paths to climb i.e. being in Code S in GSL doesn't necessary mean your in for the OSL vice versa.
On June 10 2013 15:02 larse wrote: Korean websites are all saying Ro32 in OSL premier league will be the traditional BO1 !!
BO1!
Not sure how much I like this, tradition is important but bo1 has the potential to make upsets in the ro32 happen that shouldn't otherwise happen. WCS KR is already the most difficult region to play in, we don't need to make it more punishing.
Pretty much my thoughts. Forgo tradition for the sake of making the first round competition not completely stupid, please. This isn't BW.
I've never understood this at all. BW was just as unforgiving for cheese as HoTS is so what's the big deal? The better player should always and mostly will always win the first game in a Bo3, in which case it just means they go through rather than the other guy having a chance to bring it back.
Being the best means you have to be the best in all situations, not just "Best of" matches. It's about knowing when to prepare cheese and when to play it safe in a Bo1, if anything I'd say Bo1 leads to more interesting games as both players know everything is on the line and will fight harder for the game.
It's more about consistency within WCS, it doesn't make sense for me to have KR be the most competitive region and the most unforgiving region, when the other regions give the same amount of money. If this was just OSL I would be fine with it.
I've never valued the prestige of WCS so much. Why dont you just simply enjoy the OSL. Them Koreans will be compensated for the prize cut in a weekend tourney called season finals later
Sure I can enjoy the tournament as it doesn't affect me directly, I'll watch it regardless.
The issue I have is the Korean pros that aren't Kespa A-teamers with good salaries potentially being knocked out in the ro32 because of bo1 instead of bo3. It just seems unfair to me that WCS EU & AM players get second chances while the KR players don't. There are financial problems in a lot of eSF teams right now and making the results less consistent can only make their situations worse.
This isn't just the OSL anymore, this is the only individual league in Korea and what a lot of players rely on to make their money.
Playing Bo1's is a different skill set than playing Bo3 or Bo5 or Bo7, that's also a different skill set than playing in team league proleague or winners league format. I don't see how we should validate one skill set over the other over some non-descriptive idea about fairness. Why Bo3? Why not Bo5? Or Bo7? The idea that a larger sample size between players gives more accurate representation fails to take into account things like game sense, playing under pressure, and the length / stamina of the players. Longer formats favor some play styles over others too. A player that thrives in Bo5+ format with a super standard macro style might get knocked out in Bo1's by creative unpredictable play, and that player might lose to someone with extremely good game sense and defensive style, and that player might lose in a Bo3 against someone who plans the maps out.
The idea that players rely on it to make money is a different idea from the legitimacy of the competition. If you really wanted a format where you can maximize the money gained, that's dependent on how the prize money is distributed much more so than how the rounds are played out.
More sets means the better player has a higher chance to win, we have plenty of evidence to back this theory up. We do bo3 instead of bo5/bo7 in early rounds and Dual Tournament groups because of time constraints. I think skill in a bo3+ series is the kind of skill that you should reward for an individual league and you can keep the bo1's for team leagues.
I want the best players to have the highest chance to advance, so we can build the next generation of stars.
Consistency over a long period of time = fanbase, popular players = better storylines and a more interesting spectator experience. By creating a tournament that makes it more likely for the better player to advance further into the tournament we can more easily create star players that consistently go deep into a starleague/gsl and win.
On June 10 2013 15:02 larse wrote: Korean websites are all saying Ro32 in OSL premier league will be the traditional BO1 !!
BO1!
Not sure how much I like this, tradition is important but bo1 has the potential to make upsets in the ro32 happen that shouldn't otherwise happen. WCS KR is already the most difficult region to play in, we don't need to make it more punishing.
Pretty much my thoughts. Forgo tradition for the sake of making the first round competition not completely stupid, please. This isn't BW.
I've never understood this at all. BW was just as unforgiving for cheese as HoTS is so what's the big deal? The better player should always and mostly will always win the first game in a Bo3, in which case it just means they go through rather than the other guy having a chance to bring it back.
Being the best means you have to be the best in all situations, not just "Best of" matches. It's about knowing when to prepare cheese and when to play it safe in a Bo1, if anything I'd say Bo1 leads to more interesting games as both players know everything is on the line and will fight harder for the game.
It's more about consistency within WCS, it doesn't make sense for me to have KR be the most competitive region and the most unforgiving region, when the other regions give the same amount of money. If this was just OSL I would be fine with it.
I've never valued the prestige of WCS so much. Why dont you just simply enjoy the OSL. Them Koreans will be compensated for the prize cut in a weekend tourney called season finals later
Sure I can enjoy the tournament as it doesn't affect me directly, I'll watch it regardless.
The issue I have is the Korean pros that aren't Kespa A-teamers with good salaries potentially being knocked out in the ro32 because of bo1 instead of bo3. It just seems unfair to me that WCS EU & AM players get second chances while the KR players don't. There are financial problems in a lot of eSF teams right now and making the results less consistent can only make their situations worse.
This isn't just the OSL anymore, this is the only individual league in Korea and what a lot of players rely on to make their money.
Playing Bo1's is a different skill set than playing Bo3 or Bo5 or Bo7, that's also a different skill set than playing in team league proleague or winners league format. I don't see how we should validate one skill set over the other over some non-descriptive idea about fairness. Why Bo3? Why not Bo5? Or Bo7? The idea that a larger sample size between players gives more accurate representation fails to take into account things like game sense, playing under pressure, and the length / stamina of the players. Longer formats favor some play styles over others too. A player that thrives in Bo5+ format with a super standard macro style might get knocked out in Bo1's by creative unpredictable play, and that player might lose to someone with extremely good game sense and defensive style, and that player might lose in a Bo3 against someone who plans the maps out.
The idea that players rely on it to make money is a different idea from the legitimacy of the competition. If you really wanted a format where you can maximize the money gained, that's dependent on how the prize money is distributed much more so than how the rounds are played out.
More sets means the better player has a higher chance to win, we have plenty of evidence to back this theory up. We do bo3 instead of bo5/bo7 in early rounds and Dual Tournament groups because of time constraints. I think skill in a bo3+ series is the kind of skill that you should reward for an individual league and you can keep the bo1's for team leagues.
I want the best players to have the highest chance to advance, so we can build the next generation of stars.
Consistency over a long period of time = fanbase, popular players = better storylines and a more interesting spectator experience. By creating a tournament that makes it more likely for the better player to advance further into the tournament we can more easily create star players that consistently go deep into a starleague/gsl and win.
Better in terms of what. Did you even read my post? "Over-all" ability? Late game macro? You are ignoring all the other qualities of a player. A Bo3 is also vastly different than a Bo7. The whole point of a tournament is to test a player's skill in every possible format, which is partially the reason why the Ro32 isn't the same number of sets as the Finals. Shorter sets or bo1's produce the best mind games and one off builds and I would argue the most memorable Starcraft has come out of those settings and not an elongated series.
On June 10 2013 15:02 larse wrote: Korean websites are all saying Ro32 in OSL premier league will be the traditional BO1 !!
BO1!
Not sure how much I like this, tradition is important but bo1 has the potential to make upsets in the ro32 happen that shouldn't otherwise happen. WCS KR is already the most difficult region to play in, we don't need to make it more punishing.
Pretty much my thoughts. Forgo tradition for the sake of making the first round competition not completely stupid, please. This isn't BW.
I've never understood this at all. BW was just as unforgiving for cheese as HoTS is so what's the big deal? The better player should always and mostly will always win the first game in a Bo3, in which case it just means they go through rather than the other guy having a chance to bring it back.
Being the best means you have to be the best in all situations, not just "Best of" matches. It's about knowing when to prepare cheese and when to play it safe in a Bo1, if anything I'd say Bo1 leads to more interesting games as both players know everything is on the line and will fight harder for the game.
It's more about consistency within WCS, it doesn't make sense for me to have KR be the most competitive region and the most unforgiving region, when the other regions give the same amount of money. If this was just OSL I would be fine with it.
I've never valued the prestige of WCS so much. Why dont you just simply enjoy the OSL. Them Koreans will be compensated for the prize cut in a weekend tourney called season finals later
Sure I can enjoy the tournament as it doesn't affect me directly, I'll watch it regardless.
The issue I have is the Korean pros that aren't Kespa A-teamers with good salaries potentially being knocked out in the ro32 because of bo1 instead of bo3. It just seems unfair to me that WCS EU & AM players get second chances while the KR players don't. There are financial problems in a lot of eSF teams right now and making the results less consistent can only make their situations worse.
This isn't just the OSL anymore, this is the only individual league in Korea and what a lot of players rely on to make their money.
Playing Bo1's is a different skill set than playing Bo3 or Bo5 or Bo7, that's also a different skill set than playing in team league proleague or winners league format. I don't see how we should validate one skill set over the other over some non-descriptive idea about fairness. Why Bo3? Why not Bo5? Or Bo7? The idea that a larger sample size between players gives more accurate representation fails to take into account things like game sense, playing under pressure, and the length / stamina of the players. Longer formats favor some play styles over others too. A player that thrives in Bo5+ format with a super standard macro style might get knocked out in Bo1's by creative unpredictable play, and that player might lose to someone with extremely good game sense and defensive style, and that player might lose in a Bo3 against someone who plans the maps out.
The idea that players rely on it to make money is a different idea from the legitimacy of the competition. If you really wanted a format where you can maximize the money gained, that's dependent on how the prize money is distributed much more so than how the rounds are played out.
More sets means the better player has a higher chance to win, we have plenty of evidence to back this theory up. We do bo3 instead of bo5/bo7 in early rounds and Dual Tournament groups because of time constraints. I think skill in a bo3+ series is the kind of skill that you should reward for an individual league and you can keep the bo1's for team leagues.
I want the best players to have the highest chance to advance, so we can build the next generation of stars.
Consistency over a long period of time = fanbase, popular players = better storylines and a more interesting spectator experience. By creating a tournament that makes it more likely for the better player to advance further into the tournament we can more easily create star players that consistently go deep into a starleague/gsl and win.
Better in terms of what. Did you even read my post? "Over-all" ability? Late game macro? You are ignoring all the other qualities of a player. A Bo3 is also vastly different than a Bo7. The whole point of a tournament is to test a player's skill in every possible format, which is partially the reason why the Ro32 isn't the same number of sets as the Finals. Shorter sets or bo1's produce the best mind games and one off builds and I would argue the most memorable Starcraft has come out of those settings and not an elongated series.
No the point of the tournament is not to test a player's skill in every possible format, that's just what you think it should be. The reason there are less sets at the start of the tournament is because there are far more games in the group stages and time constraints exist. Shorter sets or bo1's do not produce the best mind games and one off builds, where is the evidence of this? It doesn't exist. If I were to go into the history of this game and build a list of top 50 games I imagine less than 15% of them would come from bo1 sets.
And no we're not including Brood War, Brood War is a different game and of course in Brood War some of the best games would come from bo1 sets because there were far more bo1 sets played in that professional scene, since the largest and most important tournament was entirely bo1.
If you have an above 50% chance to win a game vs a lesser opponent the chances of you winning the series increases with the number of games in the series, I shouldn't even have to point out why more games are better because It's obvious. You can test any ability of a player in a single game, the thing about Starcraft 2 is that it's volatile and you can lose games to lesser players. Making a series longer is a way to reduce variance and allow the better players to win more overall.
I already posted about why the better players winning more often overall is better for the spectators. If you want to come up with a counter argument please argue that point instead of inserting your subjective bias of what format produces better games. Even if you were correct, the core of my argument is not about what format produces better games but instead what format allows for the best players to advance deep into the tournament more often, rewarding them monetarily for their skill.
Even if winning bo1 was a "skill" on its own, it would not make sense to start a tournament in one format (single game) and then continue it in another one (series of games). I can only hope the right people have the luck necessary to advance in such a volatile format, or else we could end up with a significantly less interesting ro16 onwards. I´m already cringing at the thought of how many upsets are made possible by this decision...
Not sure how much I like this, tradition is important but bo1 has the potential to make upsets in the ro32 happen that shouldn't otherwise happen. WCS KR is already the most difficult region to play in, we don't need to make it more punishing.
Pretty much my thoughts. Forgo tradition for the sake of making the first round competition not completely stupid, please. This isn't BW.
I've never understood this at all. BW was just as unforgiving for cheese as HoTS is so what's the big deal? The better player should always and mostly will always win the first game in a Bo3, in which case it just means they go through rather than the other guy having a chance to bring it back.
Being the best means you have to be the best in all situations, not just "Best of" matches. It's about knowing when to prepare cheese and when to play it safe in a Bo1, if anything I'd say Bo1 leads to more interesting games as both players know everything is on the line and will fight harder for the game.
It's more about consistency within WCS, it doesn't make sense for me to have KR be the most competitive region and the most unforgiving region, when the other regions give the same amount of money. If this was just OSL I would be fine with it.
I've never valued the prestige of WCS so much. Why dont you just simply enjoy the OSL. Them Koreans will be compensated for the prize cut in a weekend tourney called season finals later
Sure I can enjoy the tournament as it doesn't affect me directly, I'll watch it regardless.
The issue I have is the Korean pros that aren't Kespa A-teamers with good salaries potentially being knocked out in the ro32 because of bo1 instead of bo3. It just seems unfair to me that WCS EU & AM players get second chances while the KR players don't. There are financial problems in a lot of eSF teams right now and making the results less consistent can only make their situations worse.
This isn't just the OSL anymore, this is the only individual league in Korea and what a lot of players rely on to make their money.
Playing Bo1's is a different skill set than playing Bo3 or Bo5 or Bo7, that's also a different skill set than playing in team league proleague or winners league format. I don't see how we should validate one skill set over the other over some non-descriptive idea about fairness. Why Bo3? Why not Bo5? Or Bo7? The idea that a larger sample size between players gives more accurate representation fails to take into account things like game sense, playing under pressure, and the length / stamina of the players. Longer formats favor some play styles over others too. A player that thrives in Bo5+ format with a super standard macro style might get knocked out in Bo1's by creative unpredictable play, and that player might lose to someone with extremely good game sense and defensive style, and that player might lose in a Bo3 against someone who plans the maps out.
The idea that players rely on it to make money is a different idea from the legitimacy of the competition. If you really wanted a format where you can maximize the money gained, that's dependent on how the prize money is distributed much more so than how the rounds are played out.
More sets means the better player has a higher chance to win, we have plenty of evidence to back this theory up. We do bo3 instead of bo5/bo7 in early rounds and Dual Tournament groups because of time constraints. I think skill in a bo3+ series is the kind of skill that you should reward for an individual league and you can keep the bo1's for team leagues.
I want the best players to have the highest chance to advance, so we can build the next generation of stars.
Consistency over a long period of time = fanbase, popular players = better storylines and a more interesting spectator experience. By creating a tournament that makes it more likely for the better player to advance further into the tournament we can more easily create star players that consistently go deep into a starleague/gsl and win.
Better in terms of what. Did you even read my post? "Over-all" ability? Late game macro? You are ignoring all the other qualities of a player. A Bo3 is also vastly different than a Bo7. The whole point of a tournament is to test a player's skill in every possible format, which is partially the reason why the Ro32 isn't the same number of sets as the Finals. Shorter sets or bo1's produce the best mind games and one off builds and I would argue the most memorable Starcraft has come out of those settings and not an elongated series.
No the point of the tournament is not to test a player's skill in every possible format, that's just what you think it should be. The reason there are less sets at the start of the tournament is because there are far more games in the group stages and time constraints exist. Shorter sets or bo1's do not produce the best mind games and one off builds, where is the evidence of this? It doesn't exist. If I were to go into the history of this game and build a list of top 50 games I imagine less than 15% of them would come from bo1 sets.
And no we're not including Brood War, Brood War is a different game and of course in Brood War some of the best games would come from bo1 sets because there were far more bo1 sets played in that professional scene, since the largest and most important tournament was entirely bo1.
If you have an above 50% chance to win a game vs a lesser opponent the chances of you winning the series increases with the number of games in the series, I shouldn't even have to point out why more games are better because It's obvious. You can test any ability of a player in a single game, the thing about Starcraft 2 is that it's volatile and you can lose games to lesser players. Making a series longer is a way to reduce variance and allow the better players to win more overall.
I already posted about why the better players winning more often overall is better for the spectators. If you want to come up with a counter argument please argue that point instead of inserting your subjective bias of what format produces better games. Even if you were correct, the core of my argument is not about what format produces better games but instead what format allows for the best players to advance deep into the tournament more often, rewarding them monetarily for their skill.
You just changed your argument completely around from "There are financial problems in a lot of eSF teams right now and making the results less consistent can only make their situations worse." to "allows for the best players to advance deep into the tournament more often," When I've already said "The idea that players rely on it to make money is a different idea from the legitimacy of the competition."
We aren't arguing on the same grounds. Preferring one thing over the other is subjective bias. But that's what fans are. Don't pretend there is a unified fan base that all want one specific viewing experience for SC2, it simply does not exist.
On June 10 2013 15:02 larse wrote: Korean websites are all saying Ro32 in OSL premier league will be the traditional BO1 !!
BO1!
Not sure how much I like this, tradition is important but bo1 has the potential to make upsets in the ro32 happen that shouldn't otherwise happen. WCS KR is already the most difficult region to play in, we don't need to make it more punishing.
Pretty much my thoughts. Forgo tradition for the sake of making the first round competition not completely stupid, please. This isn't BW.
I've never understood this at all. BW was just as unforgiving for cheese as HoTS is so what's the big deal? The better player should always and mostly will always win the first game in a Bo3, in which case it just means they go through rather than the other guy having a chance to bring it back.
Being the best means you have to be the best in all situations, not just "Best of" matches. It's about knowing when to prepare cheese and when to play it safe in a Bo1, if anything I'd say Bo1 leads to more interesting games as both players know everything is on the line and will fight harder for the game.
It's more about consistency within WCS, it doesn't make sense for me to have KR be the most competitive region and the most unforgiving region, when the other regions give the same amount of money. If this was just OSL I would be fine with it.
I've never valued the prestige of WCS so much. Why dont you just simply enjoy the OSL. Them Koreans will be compensated for the prize cut in a weekend tourney called season finals later
Sure I can enjoy the tournament as it doesn't affect me directly, I'll watch it regardless.
The issue I have is the Korean pros that aren't Kespa A-teamers with good salaries potentially being knocked out in the ro32 because of bo1 instead of bo3. It just seems unfair to me that WCS EU & AM players get second chances while the KR players don't. There are financial problems in a lot of eSF teams right now and making the results less consistent can only make their situations worse.
This isn't just the OSL anymore, this is the only individual league in Korea and what a lot of players rely on to make their money.
Playing Bo1's is a different skill set than playing Bo3 or Bo5 or Bo7, that's also a different skill set than playing in team league proleague or winners league format. I don't see how we should validate one skill set over the other over some non-descriptive idea about fairness. Why Bo3? Why not Bo5? Or Bo7? The idea that a larger sample size between players gives more accurate representation fails to take into account things like game sense, playing under pressure, and the length / stamina of the players. Longer formats favor some play styles over others too. A player that thrives in Bo5+ format with a super standard macro style might get knocked out in Bo1's by creative unpredictable play, and that player might lose to someone with extremely good game sense and defensive style, and that player might lose in a Bo3 against someone who plans the maps out.
The idea that players rely on it to make money is a different idea from the legitimacy of the competition. If you really wanted a format where you can maximize the money gained, that's dependent on how the prize money is distributed much more so than how the rounds are played out.
More sets means the better player has a higher chance to win, we have plenty of evidence to back this theory up. We do bo3 instead of bo5/bo7 in early rounds and Dual Tournament groups because of time constraints. I think skill in a bo3+ series is the kind of skill that you should reward for an individual league and you can keep the bo1's for team leagues.
I want the best players to have the highest chance to advance, so we can build the next generation of stars.
Consistency over a long period of time = fanbase, popular players = better storylines and a more interesting spectator experience. By creating a tournament that makes it more likely for the better player to advance further into the tournament we can more easily create star players that consistently go deep into a starleague/gsl and win.
Better in terms of what. Did you even read my post? "Over-all" ability? Late game macro? You are ignoring all the other qualities of a player. A Bo3 is also vastly different than a Bo7. The whole point of a tournament is to test a player's skill in every possible format, which is partially the reason why the Ro32 isn't the same number of sets as the Finals. Shorter sets or bo1's produce the best mind games and one off builds and I would argue the most memorable Starcraft has come out of those settings and not an elongated series.
Better simply means better, no need to play semantics. We know which players are the best because they win more games than everyone else. It's a fact that the more games played, the higher chance will be of the better player coming up. That's why we don't play bo1 finals.
Not sure how much I like this, tradition is important but bo1 has the potential to make upsets in the ro32 happen that shouldn't otherwise happen. WCS KR is already the most difficult region to play in, we don't need to make it more punishing.
Pretty much my thoughts. Forgo tradition for the sake of making the first round competition not completely stupid, please. This isn't BW.
I've never understood this at all. BW was just as unforgiving for cheese as HoTS is so what's the big deal? The better player should always and mostly will always win the first game in a Bo3, in which case it just means they go through rather than the other guy having a chance to bring it back.
Being the best means you have to be the best in all situations, not just "Best of" matches. It's about knowing when to prepare cheese and when to play it safe in a Bo1, if anything I'd say Bo1 leads to more interesting games as both players know everything is on the line and will fight harder for the game.
It's more about consistency within WCS, it doesn't make sense for me to have KR be the most competitive region and the most unforgiving region, when the other regions give the same amount of money. If this was just OSL I would be fine with it.
I've never valued the prestige of WCS so much. Why dont you just simply enjoy the OSL. Them Koreans will be compensated for the prize cut in a weekend tourney called season finals later
Sure I can enjoy the tournament as it doesn't affect me directly, I'll watch it regardless.
The issue I have is the Korean pros that aren't Kespa A-teamers with good salaries potentially being knocked out in the ro32 because of bo1 instead of bo3. It just seems unfair to me that WCS EU & AM players get second chances while the KR players don't. There are financial problems in a lot of eSF teams right now and making the results less consistent can only make their situations worse.
This isn't just the OSL anymore, this is the only individual league in Korea and what a lot of players rely on to make their money.
Playing Bo1's is a different skill set than playing Bo3 or Bo5 or Bo7, that's also a different skill set than playing in team league proleague or winners league format. I don't see how we should validate one skill set over the other over some non-descriptive idea about fairness. Why Bo3? Why not Bo5? Or Bo7? The idea that a larger sample size between players gives more accurate representation fails to take into account things like game sense, playing under pressure, and the length / stamina of the players. Longer formats favor some play styles over others too. A player that thrives in Bo5+ format with a super standard macro style might get knocked out in Bo1's by creative unpredictable play, and that player might lose to someone with extremely good game sense and defensive style, and that player might lose in a Bo3 against someone who plans the maps out.
The idea that players rely on it to make money is a different idea from the legitimacy of the competition. If you really wanted a format where you can maximize the money gained, that's dependent on how the prize money is distributed much more so than how the rounds are played out.
More sets means the better player has a higher chance to win, we have plenty of evidence to back this theory up. We do bo3 instead of bo5/bo7 in early rounds and Dual Tournament groups because of time constraints. I think skill in a bo3+ series is the kind of skill that you should reward for an individual league and you can keep the bo1's for team leagues.
I want the best players to have the highest chance to advance, so we can build the next generation of stars.
Consistency over a long period of time = fanbase, popular players = better storylines and a more interesting spectator experience. By creating a tournament that makes it more likely for the better player to advance further into the tournament we can more easily create star players that consistently go deep into a starleague/gsl and win.
Better in terms of what. Did you even read my post? "Over-all" ability? Late game macro? You are ignoring all the other qualities of a player. A Bo3 is also vastly different than a Bo7. The whole point of a tournament is to test a player's skill in every possible format, which is partially the reason why the Ro32 isn't the same number of sets as the Finals. Shorter sets or bo1's produce the best mind games and one off builds and I would argue the most memorable Starcraft has come out of those settings and not an elongated series.
Better simply means better, no need to play semantics. We know which players are the best because they win more games than everyone else. It's a fact that the more games played, the higher chance will be of the better player coming up. That's why we don't play bo1 finals.
There is never a "better simply means better" unless by an overwhelming margin across all categories, which is why the term "bonjwa" was even invented in the first place because people realized savior was simply better than other players regardless of the situation for a long period of time. I don't know why this is suddenly an accepted fact when so many things like match ups, map pool, player region, skill set, and even game patch changes come into play. Even if you look at it from a statistical point of view, there is always an error margin. This isn't semantics. Different styles are better suited and benefited from environments that players can't control.
Am I suggesting that you play a Bo1 finals? No. I'm suggesting that there's value in Bo1, Bo3, Bo5, Bo7, round robin, team league, what ever. The idea that simply because it is Bo1 that automatically makes it a less representative format of determining player skill is dumb. If they played a round robin of Bo1 with a full 32 player group it would be a much more representative format than a predetermined 4 player group, and so on.
There are some players who simply function between in different environments, some like the high stress environment of either a come back in a Bo3+ series or a Bo1, some like to plan out each map, some prepare in specific ways for different formats. Playing long Bo5s or Bo7s is definitely a skill that's highly valued in terms of stamina and mind set and over-all fundamentals, but that doesn't mean that winning a Bo1 is less impressive, because you have to think about the player's mindset and preparation. The level of preparation you have for a Bo1 is much higher than having to prepare for several maps.
When an underdog beats an established player by exploiting his playstyle and studying hardcore and preparing to snipe him in a Bo1, do you dismiss that as "low sample size" and "oh the established player is still the better player"? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me because we don't have foresight and we can't tell where those players' careers and performances will be the next time they meet. If two players of equal fundamentals just happen to meet in an lucky or unlucky bracket in a Bo7 where one had the best matchup and the other had the worst match up, even if it's the finals (Inca vs Nestea), would you say that Inca was better than everyone below the Ro4 bracket?
If you just look at head to head, is 5 cumulative Bo1's less representative of a player's skill than 1 Bo5?
BO1 do not work in SC2. The only reason they were legitimate in BW was due to the insane skill ceiling and thus there were less chances for lesser players to take games off the cream of the crop.\
This is not the case for SC2 , a very very volatile game, where a single baneling hit can win/lose the game. Sc2 tourneys to have a minimum of BO3, it is really my belief that any GM-level player could take off ONE game off most pros and there should be a system that ensures the VERY best rise to the next stage of the tournament.
On June 10 2013 21:44 Partha wrote: BO1 do not work in SC2. The only reason they were legitimate in BW was due to the insane skill ceiling and thus there were less chances for lesser players to take games off the cream of the crop.\
This is not the case for SC2 , a very very volatile game, where a single baneling hit can win/lose the game. Sc2 tourneys to have a minimum of BO3, it is really my belief that any GM-level player could take off ONE game off most pros and there should be a system that ensures the VERY best rise to the next stage of the tournament.
BW is also an extremely volatile game even 10 years down the line so I'm really not sure what you are talking about. No one was really using queens even until 2010. Huge gaps in strategies used by players such as Dweb corsair vs Terran mech, Reaver Corsair vs Z, bulldog vs Terran, etc etc. And amateur players could also take games off pros, even a long retired Nal_rA took a game off Flash in his prime, that's the whole point of competition. I don't know why everyone is so scared of their favorite player getting dethroned because that's a huge part of the entertainment value and storylines.
EPT
