|
On December 13 2019 01:12 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 22:57 nimdil wrote:On December 12 2019 14:53 virpi wrote:
The Finland victory reminds me of Jaedong carrying Hwaseung Oz back in the day. Moustache zerg would be proud of Serral. Result wise - yes. But the format really benefits contries with one super star over countries with well rounded three players. Kind of begs the question if that's OK format. I think that none of the players should play >= 50% of the games. Problem is that most countries would have no chance that way. Korea and Germany are the only ones that would be competitive. Finland, Canada, US, Mexico, China, Italy, Taiwan etc all have a chance in an allkill/multiple revive format. Truthfully we already know what countries are the best overall at sc2. It goes Korea > Germany > Poland > China > Netherlands > Mexico or something like that. It's better to have a tournament that's competitive and fun to watch.
You ve forgotten france
|
any notable games? or more of the same kinda stuff
|
On December 12 2019 17:01 OGamingTV SC2 wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for the feedback on NW. Let's us know what did you think about the format etc. W'll look into it !
But for the 2v2 part. We clearly wanted put it in the format. Since it is a real team match. Instead of just having 1v1.
But noone plays it at high level. And one of the reason it's beacause it's really imbalanced and often boring. 2v2 in W3 was a lot of fun. But it turn's out it's not really the case in SC2.
I watched the 2v2 in Crank TL. And there were only 1 good match in all the season. It's totaly not worth it.
We can't just compare "hey look, in tennis there is a 2v2 at some point so let's do the same". We need to look at what's working the best in SC2 first.
Hey, I already said it but here i go again since you posted
I think the CTC group stage format is great! Obviously the downside is that you need longer matches, and you have the risk of a 4-0, but it's a very low risk and I think it's overall the best balance. Your B and C playet only need to pick one map out of 4 to force the ace match, but it also put a lot more pressure on the ace players to perform, because he dose not have the back up revive.
So for exemple if you have Finland, then you will always send Serral first or second to avoid getting 4-0, and then Serral has to make sure he dosen't drop a map since that would put a huge pressure on the rest of his team.
And going foward the rest of the team has 4 shot at picking up a map to force the ace, but can also just win outright.
Plus side:
-All the team has to contribute, but they also have multiple opportunity to do so.
-Every single map is super important, it put more pressure on the ace player and choosing the order of the player is more important, but not to the point and live and die by it.
-Team would almost always send their best player in the first two and their weaker player 3rd, so you should get a good number of ace vs ace and weaker player vs weaker player. (Unless you try to neutralise the other ace with a snipe, but then you get a higher risk of getting 4-0!)
-For the 4-0 situation; if you're ace get 0-2 right now you lose anyway, so it dosen't really matter if it's a 4-0, but now you're team can save the ace ass and get him to the ace match. (For exemple Serral 2-0 Reynor, but Ryu and Riosis manage to go 3-1 to give him another shot)
Potential problem:
-It can make for some very long days since it's more likely to go to 7 maps
-It can be a bit confusing, but then again this year format was also (somehow) confusing for a lot of people so I'm not sure it's a loss.
You could also make it so everyone has to play twice but not back-to-back for more matchup variety, but I think then it would get a bit too confusing.
|
I actually really liked this format. I thought it struck a good balance between ace strength and roster depth.
|
On December 13 2019 03:22 TheDougler wrote:
I actually really liked this format. I thought it struck a good balance between ace strength and roster depth.
I also think it's a decent compromise. I mean, everyone already knows Korea is the king in terms of average skill, but there is something cool about seeing one or two captains carrying their entire nation. The entertainment value of seeing less-skilled players play the majority of the games is quite low. This strikes a pretty good balance imo.
|
On December 12 2019 17:18 OGamingTV SC2 wrote:
Ho ok sry !
Yeah 2v2 is not the solution. Unfortunatly, Archont mode is not either.
The few archon games between pro have been excellent tho.
|
What s Foregone ?
TeamLiquid writer ? yes for sure, if starcraft 2 doesn t drastically change, and it won t cause it seems too risky...
Don t you hear when Queens doesn t take risks so ?
more tumors please...
|
On December 12 2019 17:52 RoninKenshin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 17:14 OGamingTV SC2 wrote:
Yes, a TL won by one player.
But if we just did:
A1 vs A2
B1 vs B2
C1 vs C2
90% of matches would have been decided just by the line up. We just can't do this format in 2019. Because most of the country don't have 3 pro players. It just would have been a pointless format. With almost 0 entertainment. It's why we just not only have to think at "what's working in SC2". But "what's working in SC2 in 2019". When Jaedong basically carried Oz on his shoulders to win Proleagues, the format was bo5 with the 5th match being the Ace match. To win a round, Jaedong would win, 1 of his 3 teammates would win, and he would win the Ace. This format was acceptable, as someone besides the ace would be required to contribute. The main problem for Nation Wars in regards to this is the 3 player roster vs 4 player for that bo5. And I agree that it's very difficult for many countries to procure 3 competitive players. I think the easiest solution is to cap a single player's number of games in a match to 1 less than the winning score. Bo5, cap the players at 2 games each. Bo7, cap the players at 3 games each etc. This lets the Ace still shine in a shallow roster, but ensures that it's a team series.
if you are unable to find 3 players that can't compete, in your entire nation, your nation has no business in this tournament called Nation ! wars.
Finland won, good for serral but lets not pretend Finland is the best nation.
|
Finland was clearly the best nation thanks to Serral.Hell this is nationwar!. But I seriously think that if the korean lineup had been Dark, Maru and Cure with herO as replacement they would have taken the title.
|
On December 13 2019 22:57 GrandSmurf wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 17:52 RoninKenshin wrote:On December 12 2019 17:14 OGamingTV SC2 wrote:
Yes, a TL won by one player.
But if we just did:
A1 vs A2
B1 vs B2
C1 vs C2
90% of matches would have been decided just by the line up. We just can't do this format in 2019. Because most of the country don't have 3 pro players. It just would have been a pointless format. With almost 0 entertainment. It's why we just not only have to think at "what's working in SC2". But "what's working in SC2 in 2019". When Jaedong basically carried Oz on his shoulders to win Proleagues, the format was bo5 with the 5th match being the Ace match. To win a round, Jaedong would win, 1 of his 3 teammates would win, and he would win the Ace. This format was acceptable, as someone besides the ace would be required to contribute. The main problem for Nation Wars in regards to this is the 3 player roster vs 4 player for that bo5. And I agree that it's very difficult for many countries to procure 3 competitive players. I think the easiest solution is to cap a single player's number of games in a match to 1 less than the winning score. Bo5, cap the players at 2 games each. Bo7, cap the players at 3 games each etc. This lets the Ace still shine in a shallow roster, but ensures that it's a team series. if you are unable to find 3 players that can't compete, in your entire nation, your nation has no business in this tournament called Nation ! wars. Finland won, good for serral but lets not pretend Finland is the best nation.
It's like in AoE 2, when archers and swordsman fight vs each other and then one player types BIG DADDY and a armored super vehicle with lasers and bazookas appears. That's Serral
|
"one of the few Koreans with relatively sustained against Serral"
|
On December 13 2019 23:23 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 22:57 GrandSmurf wrote:On December 12 2019 17:52 RoninKenshin wrote:On December 12 2019 17:14 OGamingTV SC2 wrote:
Yes, a TL won by one player.
But if we just did:
A1 vs A2
B1 vs B2
C1 vs C2
90% of matches would have been decided just by the line up. We just can't do this format in 2019. Because most of the country don't have 3 pro players. It just would have been a pointless format. With almost 0 entertainment. It's why we just not only have to think at "what's working in SC2". But "what's working in SC2 in 2019". When Jaedong basically carried Oz on his shoulders to win Proleagues, the format was bo5 with the 5th match being the Ace match. To win a round, Jaedong would win, 1 of his 3 teammates would win, and he would win the Ace. This format was acceptable, as someone besides the ace would be required to contribute. The main problem for Nation Wars in regards to this is the 3 player roster vs 4 player for that bo5. And I agree that it's very difficult for many countries to procure 3 competitive players. I think the easiest solution is to cap a single player's number of games in a match to 1 less than the winning score. Bo5, cap the players at 2 games each. Bo7, cap the players at 3 games each etc. This lets the Ace still shine in a shallow roster, but ensures that it's a team series. if you are unable to find 3 players that can't compete, in your entire nation, your nation has no business in this tournament called Nation ! wars. Finland won, good for serral but lets not pretend Finland is the best nation. It's like in AoE 2, when archers and swordsman fight vs each other and then one player types BIG DADDY and a armored super vehicle with lasers and bazookas appears. That's Serral
Yet he didn't win the IEM nor Blizzcon. His Bazooka wasn't big enough? And it's not a racial issue, both events were won by Zerg 
|
On December 13 2019 23:23 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 22:57 GrandSmurf wrote:On December 12 2019 17:52 RoninKenshin wrote:On December 12 2019 17:14 OGamingTV SC2 wrote:
Yes, a TL won by one player.
But if we just did:
A1 vs A2
B1 vs B2
C1 vs C2
90% of matches would have been decided just by the line up. We just can't do this format in 2019. Because most of the country don't have 3 pro players. It just would have been a pointless format. With almost 0 entertainment. It's why we just not only have to think at "what's working in SC2". But "what's working in SC2 in 2019". When Jaedong basically carried Oz on his shoulders to win Proleagues, the format was bo5 with the 5th match being the Ace match. To win a round, Jaedong would win, 1 of his 3 teammates would win, and he would win the Ace. This format was acceptable, as someone besides the ace would be required to contribute. The main problem for Nation Wars in regards to this is the 3 player roster vs 4 player for that bo5. And I agree that it's very difficult for many countries to procure 3 competitive players. I think the easiest solution is to cap a single player's number of games in a match to 1 less than the winning score. Bo5, cap the players at 2 games each. Bo7, cap the players at 3 games each etc. This lets the Ace still shine in a shallow roster, but ensures that it's a team series. if you are unable to find 3 players that can't compete, in your entire nation, your nation has no business in this tournament called Nation ! wars. Finland won, good for serral but lets not pretend Finland is the best nation. It's like in AoE 2, when archers and swordsman fight vs each other and then one player types BIG DADDY and a armored super vehicle with lasers and bazookas appears. That's Serral
Everyone knows in AoE 2 you enter howdoyouturnthison to get a Shelby Cobra firing machine guns.
|
On December 14 2019 00:09 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 23:23 Harris1st wrote:On December 13 2019 22:57 GrandSmurf wrote:On December 12 2019 17:52 RoninKenshin wrote:On December 12 2019 17:14 OGamingTV SC2 wrote:
Yes, a TL won by one player.
But if we just did:
A1 vs A2
B1 vs B2
C1 vs C2
90% of matches would have been decided just by the line up. We just can't do this format in 2019. Because most of the country don't have 3 pro players. It just would have been a pointless format. With almost 0 entertainment. It's why we just not only have to think at "what's working in SC2". But "what's working in SC2 in 2019". When Jaedong basically carried Oz on his shoulders to win Proleagues, the format was bo5 with the 5th match being the Ace match. To win a round, Jaedong would win, 1 of his 3 teammates would win, and he would win the Ace. This format was acceptable, as someone besides the ace would be required to contribute. The main problem for Nation Wars in regards to this is the 3 player roster vs 4 player for that bo5. And I agree that it's very difficult for many countries to procure 3 competitive players. I think the easiest solution is to cap a single player's number of games in a match to 1 less than the winning score. Bo5, cap the players at 2 games each. Bo7, cap the players at 3 games each etc. This lets the Ace still shine in a shallow roster, but ensures that it's a team series. if you are unable to find 3 players that can't compete, in your entire nation, your nation has no business in this tournament called Nation ! wars. Finland won, good for serral but lets not pretend Finland is the best nation. It's like in AoE 2, when archers and swordsman fight vs each other and then one player types BIG DADDY and a armored super vehicle with lasers and bazookas appears. That's Serral Yet he didn't win the IEM nor Blizzcon. His Bazooka wasn't big enough? And it's not a racial issue, both events were won by Zerg
Yes, we all know the list of the tournaments someone didn't win is the most relevant; just accept Serral's greatness at this point, denying it is useless.
|
I think they need to change up the format again. I am not interested in teams being carried by a single player like that. To me it leads the whole concept of a team tournament ad absurdum.
|
|
|
On December 14 2019 01:16 dbRic1203 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 00:34 Aunvilgodess wrote:
I think they need to change up the format again. I am not interested in teams being carried by a single player like that. To me it leads the whole concept of a team tournament ad absurdum. Like Korea, wich got hard carried by Stats in the finals, as their only player to actually take maps of the finnish rooster?
Even better than that, Zhuge's win against soO cannot be put on imba.
Koreans where good (by default), but... the tournament format was same for every country and Finland managed to use its available roster the best in given circumstances, Serral being just Serral. Note that TheMusZero took a map vs Italy, an another One-man-army team, thus as a team effort everyone in Team Finland contributed for the team's success.
That "Ad Absurdum" is Serral, but you know that as I do. :D
|
On December 11 2019 13:48 RandomPlayer wrote:
I agree, good format by NW. SC2 teams are not suitable for team leagues, it’s a 1vs1 game. Good event though.
I disagree, while sc2 is popular for its 1on1, 2vs2 is still played by pros occasionally. It's something you can play... So it IS absolutely suitable. It's not like I'm saying every tournament needs to do 2vs2.. but 1 of 100, why not.
Indeed the balance is "different" here.
|
Love Nation Wars... you guys hold my fav tournament of the year! Keep going!
|
On December 14 2019 02:53 UnLarva wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 01:16 dbRic1203 wrote:On December 14 2019 00:34 Aunvilgodess wrote:
I think they need to change up the format again. I am not interested in teams being carried by a single player like that. To me it leads the whole concept of a team tournament ad absurdum. Like Korea, wich got hard carried by Stats in the finals, as their only player to actually take maps of the finnish rooster? Even better than that, Zhuge's win against soO cannot be put on imba. Koreans where good (by default), but... the tournament format was same for every country and Finland managed to use its available roster the best in given circumstances, Serral being just Serral. Note that TheMusZero took a map vs Italy, an another One-man-army team, thus as a team effort everyone in Team Finland contributed for the team's success. That "Ad Absurdum" is Serral, but you know that as I do. :D
I'm not happy to say but soO's form after his IEM victory is getting worse and worse. Had Rogue or Dark played its a completely different ball game...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
