|
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ubdMPHe.jpg)
Source
Blizzard just revealed some rule changes for WCS 2018. With the announced changes, young players like  Reynor and Clem are allowed to sign up for WCS events, as long as they are 16 before the event begins.
In addition WCS 2018 will have a less top heavy prize money distribution and WCS points will be awarded to the top 32 instead of the top 16. This means that players who are elminated in the ro32 will still get 100 points for their efforts.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/o6CUEhe.jpg)
The age restriction change especially will make many fans and players happy, as the discussion about the age restriction has been ongoing on community forums and social media.
Clem and Reynor have been turning heads for a while with great performances in online competitions, but have not been able to play in the WCS due to their age. According to the old ruleset, they would've been unable to play in the WCS 2018 as well, despite them reaching the age of 16 later this year. Thankfully they can now look forward to competing in the most important sc2 tournament circuit, once they turn 16 in April (Clem) and July (Reynor) respectively.
Official WCS 2018 Rule Book
|
Very happy to hear that Clem and Raynor will be able to participate in the later events of the year. The prize pool redistribution is nice, though better coverage of the qualifiers (making them last longer too) is what up and coming players really need.
|
$ 6k5 for the third was already not huge ...
But its good to see that Blizzard is still trying to improve things.
|
Thank you Blizzard for updating the rule on age restriction  That's great news! Can't wait to see Clem and Reynor show their skill in WCS events.
|
Oh wow, finally some good news!
|
They wanted to give Neeb a pay cut this year lol
|
Top-heavy prize pools are a very Korean thing to do, not surprised that they redistributed the WCS prizepool.
|
I like the less top heavy prize pool, but as Ziggurat already said, better coverage of the qualifiers is needed, still glad that Blizzard is making active changes with WCS, the new balance team has got this game on a better footing then it was a year ago I think.
|
nice! 
|
On January 19 2018 09:42 pvsnp wrote:
Top-heavy prize pools are a very Korean thing to do, not surprised that they redistributed the WCS prizepool.
As stupid as the Katowice 2014 distribution was, it was still hilarious to watch
|
On January 19 2018 10:14 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 09:42 pvsnp wrote:
Top-heavy prize pools are a very Korean thing to do, not surprised that they redistributed the WCS prizepool. As stupid as the Katowice 2014 distribution was, it was still hilarious to watch
yeah hilarious to see the 2nd place finisher get nothing xDDD not the most stupid thing we've ever seen at all :^)
|
On January 19 2018 16:07 Executer08 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 10:14 Fango wrote:On January 19 2018 09:42 pvsnp wrote:
Top-heavy prize pools are a very Korean thing to do, not surprised that they redistributed the WCS prizepool. As stupid as the Katowice 2014 distribution was, it was still hilarious to watch yeah hilarious to see the 2nd place finisher get nothing xDDD not the most stupid thing we've ever seen at all :^)
Was that the tournaments where the players chose that?
|
|
|
For once in the past week, Blizzard did something positive with the SC2 eSports scene. Bravo.
|
Finally Riccardo gets his chance
|
You can't believe how happy I am !!!!!!!!
It's like someone read my post last year and did something about it!
Here's what my post was:
+ Show Spoiler +On October 31 2017 09:33 KR_4EVR wrote:I think there is a kind of serious error.Blizzard messed up the prize pool. !Basic algebra yields the exponential prizes adding to $700k, assuming each higher tier is worth approx. double the lower tier payout. Exponential:
1st) $232k x1
2nd) $116k x1
3-4) $58k x2
5-8) $29k x4
9-16) $15k x8
In particular the 3rd) to 8th) place prizes on 2017 WCS Global Finals are much lower than they should fairly be. And by "fair", I mean the limit of fairness. Anything more skewed than what I wrote above is just messed up. I don't really think prizes should scale as power 2^N, but linearly. Below is a realistic look at what the $700k prize pool should be (linear, rounded): Linear:
1st) $113 k
2nd) $90.3k
3-4) $67.7k
5-8) $45.1k
9-16) $22.6k
This would ensure that each tier level won gains you the same amount of prize. The really bad thing is that the current WCS pool is WORSE THAN EXPONENTIAL in end-skew. Disclaimer: I was not paid to write this post, but it may or may not represent the opinion of someone you are unlikely to disagree with less than half the time.
I'm so upbeat about this I might just have to play some LoL to return to normal.
|
On January 19 2018 19:48 Uberfather wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 16:07 Executer08 wrote:On January 19 2018 10:14 Fango wrote:On January 19 2018 09:42 pvsnp wrote:
Top-heavy prize pools are a very Korean thing to do, not surprised that they redistributed the WCS prizepool. As stupid as the Katowice 2014 distribution was, it was still hilarious to watch yeah hilarious to see the 2nd place finisher get nothing xDDD not the most stupid thing we've ever seen at all :^) Was that the tournaments where the players chose that?
From what i heard is that most players wanted to split between first and second place, but sOs was there for glory... So he didn't participate in the deal... And he took it all home. It may have been a stupid concept, but sOs was badass, with balls of steel. :D
|
Dominican Republic627 Posts
i really like the reward anyone can get in this tournament, this old fashion 123 is over.
|
Less top heavy prize money distribution and lowering of the age restriction seem to me like changes that benefit the community. Good job, Blizzard.
|
|
|
Norway839 Posts
Good changes. Esports formats in general still have a long way to go but any progress is good. (remember this?)
I tried to push for 3rd place finishers in group stage #3 (17th-24th place) being rewarded more WCS points/money than 4th place (25th-32nd), unfortunately it didn't go through. Considered this one a no brainer change, but maybe next year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
