EPT[CSL] Season 4 Official Thread - Page 11
| Forum Index > TL Community |
|
blabber
United States4450 Posts
| ||
|
hazelynut
United States2197 Posts
On August 27 2010 15:03 blabber wrote: ace matches are so exciting though! Remember Jaeyun vs Nony? Everyone knew it would be Jaeyun and Nony either way O_O! No aces means more focus on depth, less burden on teams, and 2v2, aces mean drama and hype with mvp/ace players bringing home the victory. We were deciding on this a while ago, and thought that it would be nicer to have the regular season be 4 1v1s / 1 2v2 while playoffs re-introduce the ace mechanism. If the general consensus really prefers the drama of an ace game throughout regular season too, we can see about making changes. Otherwise, assume this format. | ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
| ||
|
NB
Netherlands12045 Posts
please understand that we want to take CSL as PL in NA, how about make winner bracket and loser bracket, loser use 2v2 and winner use ace? Or using ace or 2v2 is decided between 2 schools, if disagree 2v2 auto?... Please dont remove ace completely, the balance in sc2 is mostly made for 1v1, not 2v2 =.= | ||
|
Zlasher
United States9129 Posts
| ||
|
vyro
United States22 Posts
i'll be the TL contact for the uva team. email caleb if you want confirmation  | ||
|
blabber
United States4450 Posts
| ||
|
NB
Netherlands12045 Posts
| ||
|
blabber
United States4450 Posts
On August 27 2010 15:44 NB wrote: i dont know, 2v2 is a completely different game to me. especially when now you can share control + resources between allies, its even MORE complicated.... Sharing control doesn't really come into play in my experience... but I can definitely see some abusive strategy involving sharing resources (ex. Terran and their MULEs just feed the ally) On August 27 2010 15:22 ZlaSHeR wrote: I don't see why you all are dieing for ace's though, the idea of them in an open league like CSL just begs for teams with one superstar pro-caliber player a la Nony, qxc, etc. to win everything. This doesn't seem like a bad change at all... instead of teams sending their best players for the normal 1v1 and ace, they're just going to send them for the normal 1v1 and the 2v2 I don't think that's the reason for the change anyway | ||
|
ReketSomething
United States6012 Posts
I would definitely prefer having a 2v2 though...just then on unique thing is kinda weird... | ||
|
[Agony]x90
United States853 Posts
On August 27 2010 15:18 NB wrote: so why dont we just put every school into a FFA BGH for fast.... please understand that we want to take CSL as PL in NA, how about make winner bracket and loser bracket, loser use 2v2 and winner use ace? Or using ace or 2v2 is decided between 2 schools, if disagree 2v2 auto?... Please dont remove ace completely, the balance in sc2 is mostly made for 1v1, not 2v2 =.= Hey, given that CSL tries (or tried) to model itself off of the Korean SC:BW scene, I can understand why you wouldn't want 2v2 or to get rid of ace, but after three seasons of play, certain issues have simply shown that we cannot keep up with the Korean league. In my opinion, this is mostly because the Korean Proleague is a professional league. The expectations of the players allow for an ace style match, as any player is potentially capable of winning the final match, making it a more suspenseful and evenly matched game. On the other hand, in CSL, the ACE usually consists of a very predictable match up between the two very best players, or allows with single good players to carry them on to victory. Admitting, coming from Princeton, we relied heavily upon [pton]zchen to win two of our three games. So we didn't really need a base of good players , but instead, we could rely on a single "super" player who could carry us. If we remove the ace and add 2v2, it would at least add some flavor or at least opportunity for the other team to beat out the occasional "super" players. Also, you gotta keep in mind, this isn't SC:BW, where the only viable 2v2 strat is to go fast lings/lots and rush the other player. Even though the current "strong" strat is now reaper/ling, there is still plenty of strategy involved. Having played plenty of 2v2 games, I find that many of the games don't simply become a double player elimination, semi-glorified 1v1 matches, but instead requires a lot more thought and cooperation. In fact, the new team maps alone, in which teams are given common bases, ensure that games don't necessarily become cheese fests and give a chance for more macro orientated games. Lastly, CSL has shown in the past that it is neither stubborn nor blind to public opinion. If the currently proposed system fails, they'll be sure to fix it, if not immediately than at least before the start of the next season. If it is truly awful, the feel free to come back with all your "told you so's" and what not, but until then, give CSL a chance to work with a new game, since this will be the first SC2 season. edit: fixed grammar stuff | ||
|
blabber
United States4450 Posts
On August 27 2010 17:28 [Agony]x90 wrote: Hey, given that CSL tries (or tried) to model itself off of the Korean SC:BW scene, I can understand why you wouldn't want 2v2 or to get rid of ace, but after three seasons of play, certain issues have simply shown that we cannot keep up with the Korean league. In my opinion, this is mostly because the Korean Proleague is a professional league. The expectations of the players allow for an ace style match, as any player is potentially capable of winning the final match, making it a more suspenseful and evenly matched game. On the other hand, in CSL, the ACE usually consists of a very predictable match up between the two very best players, or allows with single good players to carry them on to victory. Admitting, coming from Princeton, we relied heavily upon [pton]zchen to win two of our three games. So we didn't really need a base of good players , but instead, we could rely on a single "super" player who could carry us. If we remove the ace and add 2v2, it would at least add some flavor or at least opportunity for the other team to beat out the occasional "super" players. Also, you gotta keep in mind, this isn't SC:BW, where the only viable 2v2 strat is to go fast lings/lots and rush the other player. Even though the current "strong" strat is now reaper/ling, there is still plenty of strategy involved. Having played plenty of 2v2 games, I find that many of the games don't simply become a double player elimination, semi-glorified 1v1 matches, but instead requires a lot more thought and cooperation. In fact, the new team maps alone, in which teams are given common bases, ensure that games don't necessarily become cheese fests and give a chance for more macro orientated games. Lastly, CSL has shown in the past that it is neither stubborn nor blind to public opinion. If the currently proposed system fails, they'll be sure to fix it, if not immediately than at least before the start of the next season. If it is truly awful, the feel free to come back with all your "told you so's" and what not, but until then, give CSL a chance to work with a new game, since this will be the first SC2 season. edit: fixed grammar stuff well if you look at past seasons, you'll see that teams with depth outperform teams that have just the one super player. Last season we saw UCSD beat Duke who has Nony while UCSD has relative nobodies. Same thing with Waterloo. Harvey Mudd who had qxc who's like B level didn't even make the playoffs (neither did UC Riverside who had Dino). My team (UC Irvine who had no one above C+) did very well in the past seasons because we have solid depth | ||
|
[Agony]x90
United States853 Posts
On August 27 2010 17:45 blabber wrote: well if you look at past seasons, you'll see that teams with depth outperform teams that have just the one super player. Last season we saw UCSD beat Duke who has Nony while UCSD has relative nobodies. Same thing with Waterloo. Harvey Mudd who had qxc who's like B level didn't even make the playoffs (neither did UC Riverside who had Dino). My team (UC Irvine who had no one above C+) did very well in the past seasons because we have solid depth Definitely agree with you here. An ideal team is to have good depth, oppose to having one good player, and removing the ACE can support teams with good depth. I recall seeing the results of several matches, in which one single player would win the team two games, and the rest of the team simply had to muster up another one more, while the other team had to try and win the other three. | ||
|
AoN.DimSum
United States2983 Posts
All the foreign leagues like wgtcl and bwcl always had 2v2 so I think this is a good decision. I never liked 2v2 in previous csl seasons because it was too hard to practice 2v2 with rutgers internet. We couldnt join each others games so we had to use hamachi for csl games. But in sc2, it should be fine. | ||
|
blabber
United States4450 Posts
| ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
| ||
|
Ideas
United States8182 Posts
On August 30 2010 08:17 Xeris wrote: no deadline... players can join throughout the season, but players added late (past some undecided point) won't be eligible for the playoffs. i dont understand the reasoning for this rule. if a team finds out a really good player is at their school and they only then contact him and get him playing for them, why can't he play in the playoffs? | ||
|
Marcury
Canada141 Posts
| ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On August 30 2010 08:21 Ideas wrote: i dont understand the reasoning for this rule. if a team finds out a really good player is at their school and they only then contact him and get him playing for them, why can't he play in the playoffs? it's kinda like a merc, I'll use an example from BW. let's say you're in a clan league with a 1k prize, and right before the final you just recruit Flash to play for you so you can win. obviously this isn't really fair to the competition, he's not really a part of the team, etc. so on a similar note, someone who hasn't been with the team for the whole season can be thought of as a merc. "hey, you're really good at SC, play in the playoffs for my team..." - it just seems wrong. | ||
|
Solidus_315
213 Posts
| ||
| ||
