Thread has been deleted
Last comment
if swiss system sucks, what system dont?
North America vellabrown 
back to GSL? when u draw against m16r (legend) and navi (challenger) in a group, u have no chance to go through it? i dont get the point that nip fans complain about their draws. i would agree that they will advance if they had better luck, but then another team would say that theyre robbed. theyre just near the line of top8 in this event, so its quite acceptable theyre in or out. astralis beat m16r, so i can say astralis is way more stronger than brazilians. if mibr is qualified, then astrais [deserves] a quaterfinal spot. however nip lost to mibr, how can they say that nip deserves a spot? it nip desreves a quarterfinal spot, then what m16r deserves, a semifinal spot? well then, we should just send the cup to astralis, no need to play the rest? it should be a common sense that team A losing 2-16 to team H and team B losing 10-16 to team H dont necessarily means team B can win against team A. a match, and a tournament is won by a team who wins it in actual games. if u judge "nip do have a shapes that deserves Elite Eight spot, lets put them in", then why dont we do the same with "team C have the best form now, so we just award them the champion, dont waste more time"? any tournament system that has draw needs luck. the only way to decide a champion with no luck is putting all teams in a round-robin. its impossible to use this form unless u just let a few teams to participate in. this would raise more argue like " a 8-team major with a tier 3765 asian team but without nip is sh*t". but if u put like 16 or 24 teams in the round robin, that needs a lot more time and matches, and produces a lot of matches between weak teams that audiences dont want to watch. even this cant guarantee "totally fair", cuz how do u decide the best 16 teams in this tournament? like, EU has 9 spots and NA has 7 spots, then u would argue "why NA #8 isnt in while a weaker EU #9 is in?" to guarantee the "totally fair" u want, u should put all teams (yes, all teams in the world) in this tournament so that everyone gets fair chance. in fact, almost all mainstream sports tournaments (final stage) use single elimination (may or may not with drawn groups) system, and all matches are bo1. this is proven the best possible way for a tournament, and its enough. no matter you are Roger, Rafael or any noname, the system is so simple and fair to every player in the main event: whoever wins 7 bo1 matches, wins the grand slam. there were so many, and there will be more players who meet the final winner too early and end up in a low rank. there were so many, and there will be more players who get a lucky draw all the way through to the later rounds or even finals. there were so many, and there will be more best players and teams that get upset in bo1 matches and lose champions. there were so many, and there will be more teams drawn in a death group and pack up in the group stage. no one says we should use another system. we just admit luck and go forward. cuz we know two rules: if you are better than your opponent, you should win against him. if you are better than any other opponents, you should win the champion.
2018-09-21 00:54
#1
 | 
Slovakia STYKOsports 
tl;dr respect if you read all of that
2018-09-21 00:57
#2
 | 
Japan papa_smurf 
+1
2018-09-21 00:58
+1
2018-09-21 11:43
Fucking idiot. Your generation is going to be the death of the human race...
2018-09-21 11:44
Yes it actually is, you got that correctly
2018-09-21 11:47
Who cares
2018-09-21 11:49
#128
 | 
United States BLNDSPT 
no one cares bro xD
2018-09-21 18:32
good, the human race has done nothing but cause trouble for mother earth, it's about time
2018-09-22 00:49
this is true but wtf
2018-09-22 04:58
Lets just get a swiss system bo5, no upsets. easy.
2018-09-21 01:00
swiss system means your opponents through this system is different from another team. you would still complain about bad draw.
2018-09-21 01:08
#121
 | 
Lithuania andy_ 
Bo7 would be better imo
2018-09-21 12:57
true, bo7 would be too good
2018-09-21 14:36
#4
 | 
Brazil ThunderDalon 
Well I think the international works pretty well, no one complains about it, 2 round robin groups composed by 9 teams, top 4 from each group go into upper bracket, the last is eliminated, and the others go to lower bracket. Double elimination for ones topping their groups and a bo5 final
2018-09-21 01:01
two groups could still create "bad luck", cuz two groups arent equally balanced. more group with less team means more imbalance, and less group with more teams means more matches. plus: double elimination also has the similar problem: it reduces the chance that strong players meet too early and strong player upset by weak ones, but it creates a lot more matches (and costs). u cant have pleased fair and cost at the same time.
2018-09-21 01:20
that is not true! 2 groups, 4 legends + 5 "challenger" each makes it fair, especially the playoff lower bracket is great, most enjoyable system out there! #12
2018-09-21 01:31
no, the legends still have G2, fnatic and winstrike.if two or even three of them are drawn in one group without challenger astralis and liquid, then this group will still treated "unfair draw". sh*t team (by their words) can still luckily become top 4 in this group and advances into the upper braket. this sh*t team just need one win in the double elimination system to become top 8 (which means another sh*t team they hate in the next major).
2018-09-21 01:41
neither g2 nor fnatic nor winstrike is a "legend" team btw There is no system which doesnt include luck at all!
2018-09-21 01:42
#27
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
From last major into this one they were...which is what wouldve decided the draw for this major...
2018-09-21 01:57
ok I see what you are pointing out! But remember there are always teams becoming a worse version of themself a major later, that has nothing to do with luck, take place 1, 3/4, 5-8 and 2,3/4,5-8 to one group each, cant get more balanced!
2018-09-21 02:00
I dont get it. We talk about major champion doesnt matter who takes top 8 if it is playoffs. Double elimination is best format People do not complain about weak teams on international. Pls remember how many bad teams was in top8 if last international? VP,Liquid,EG,PSG,Secret,OG, Optic Gaming, VGJ. This teams was contenders before major , took 1-4 places in groups, took 1-8 in playoffs, so whats wrong?
2018-09-21 11:47
Wtf are you talking about man Top8 requres 1 bo3 win in high bracket, but you need to do well in group stage before How you can predict which team is good or bad? Round robin is not a choice two Champion could lose to 2,3,4 place and still win
2018-09-21 11:36
#51
 | 
Brazil ThunderDalon 
Yeah, the groups might not be perfect balanced, especially with this terrible seeding valve added, but i guess it works in dota 2 cuz the dota pro circuit works pretty well in seeding.
2018-09-21 02:49
#5
 | 
France StickyRice 
Swiss BO3 is the best system, but the one we had at this Major is still a (very) good one.
2018-09-21 01:02
I dont think this bo1 system is great, actually it really sucks! bo1 in itself is not the problem, the problem is the ability to ban 3 maps which basically let teams like complexity come through! That is the worst and biggest problem, thats what made the major so boring to watch (at least if you are not an inferno fan like me)! #12
2018-09-21 01:30
#15
smooya | 
United Kingdom fal36 
+1 Each team should only be able to ban 1 or 2 maps each in bo1 so there is a selection of maps that can be randomly chosen from
2018-09-21 01:37
#28
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
The randomiser was one of the most criticized features of past majors...almost EVERYONE bitched about it until it was removed
2018-09-21 01:58
#33
smooya | 
United Kingdom fal36 
But it stops teams from just playing one map and going through in bo1s but getting destroyed to bo3s when they have to playnother maps It will reward teams with stronger mappools that are more likely to go further in the tournament
2018-09-21 02:04
#37
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
I dont disagree with that thought process. But we had something like that before, and the community as a whole was VERY vocal about removing it. The decision has already been made on the topic
2018-09-21 02:07
so heres the question: why do strong teams pretend to desire a win while not banning this "one map"?
2018-09-21 02:09
#46
smooya | 
United Kingdom fal36 
Huh?
2018-09-21 02:30
#52
 | 
Indonesia linekerrr 
The other team could just ban the map that this one team keeps playing is what i think he was saying.
2018-09-21 03:37
#53
smooya | 
United Kingdom fal36 
They could but that map is a map that both teams are good on they may not want to ban it
2018-09-21 10:43
#54
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
That's why teams need to realize what teams are strong on what maps and not let them play it? How are you blaming the system for CoL making it through when 1. Fnatic chose to play them on inferno and 2. They played 3 different maps in the new legends stage.
2018-09-21 10:51
#60
smooya | 
United Kingdom fal36 
Who said complexity?
2018-09-21 11:07
#62
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
#13 did which you responded to. Either way randomization isnt the answer it just adds even more question marks to the validity of a teams run "Did they just get lucky with maps?" "Oh of course they got x team on c map"
2018-09-21 11:18
#78
smooya | 
United Kingdom fal36 
Teams should be able to play as many maps as possible so if each team bans 2 then both teams should have a good chance on anyone of the remaining 3 maps
2018-09-21 11:34
#63
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
#54
2018-09-21 11:19
#29
f0rest | 
Pakistan pak0s 
bo3 is perfect but the only issue I guess is time. Only 4 days went for challengers stage recently. So if we make it bo3, it will take 12 days just for challengers stage. So the only solution to it is multiple matches at a time but during major it will be issue for valve to handle drops and viewers on multiple streams.
2018-09-21 01:59
and, multiple matches at the same time means audiences split, less audiences means less commercial value. thats why big tournaments avoid multiple matches at a time.
2018-09-21 02:12
Play 2 games at the same time at challengers stage? Pretty simple to fix time issue.
2018-09-21 11:23
#127
f0rest | 
Pakistan pak0s 
major is a big event like worldcup in football. Valve can increase overall days for major but may never split streams
2018-09-21 18:18
what if they implement a team rating thing, where top 10 teams the past like lets say 6 months have been consistently in the 10 get invites to major without needing to qualify
2018-09-21 01:08
Well to be perfectly honest, in my humble opinion, of course without offending anyone who thinks differently from my point of view, but also by looking into this matter in a different perspective and without being condemning of one's view's and by trying to make it objectified, and by considering each and every one's valid opinion, I honestly believe that I completely forgot what I was going to say.
2018-09-21 01:11
#30
TACO | 
Brazil user2740 
why i read this
2018-09-21 02:00
Ha!
2018-09-21 11:35
Nah, that would cut down the possibilities for smaller uprising teams to qualify because these 10 spots are already taken. And tbh. seeing all the ups anb downs from smaller or bigger teams is what makes tournaments interesting.
2018-09-21 11:54
#10
JZFB | 
Lithuania gime114 
Many factors contributed to the increasing tensions amongst the great powers of Europe and the beginning of WWI. In your opinion, which event or ideology had the greatest impact on the beginning of the First World War? While there can be many answers to this question, your grade will be dependent on your persuasive writing and the displaying of facts and examples to support your thesis. Be sure to cite any outside sources using the MLA style.
2018-09-21 01:18
Swiss is bad, bye
2018-09-21 01:23
swiss is not bad, swiss is the a great system JUST NOT BO1! 2 options imo: 1. Do it like the International (+ bo5 final!!!!!!) 2. Swiss bo3 (you could start 2 matches at the same time or play from monday to sunday which wouldnt have been a problem at all) The draws which some people saw as "unfair" werent, the system is transparent and if NIP, NaVi ... had won their first matches or even not lost it that hard it would have been another story!
2018-09-21 01:28
both of the 2 options would be an improvement, the only reason swiss system gets broken is because favorites sometimes drop focus (their own damn fault) and lose a bo1 against the underdog and it screwes with the seeding/draws right from the start. in bo3 it would be much less of that happening I feel like :) but so far swiss system is better than the other systems we had in the past at csgo majors. Today (or yesterday..) were 2 terrible games to watch tho, not swiss system fault but the team's :P good night ^^
2018-09-21 01:41
#13 is my biggest problem with bo1 swiss! Yah well but in another world these games could have been definetly more interesting, BIG underperformed dramatically and complexity didnt keep up playing well, also mibr was pretty strong!
2018-09-21 01:45
yeah agree Mibr is looking scarier each game... YNK revolution it seems :P About the system, I completely agree with you, map pool and/or veto system needs a huge overhaul to make a giant change in the pro scene, I just have no idea how to do it to make it ok for the pros and us viewers at the same time... more maps, less bans, first picks then bans... something else entirely? who knows, I'm terrible at organizing :P
2018-09-21 01:46
I am not so sure MIBR is as good as they look, and I dont refer to the 16 - 0 that just happens even though it didnt look too promising especially mentally imo. I dont think they can get any further: Faze, Liquid, Astralis and Navi are definetly better atm! More maps would be interesting, especially maps which are not noob friend like dust2 and nuke remake and perhaps brings something new to play maybe shit like 3 bombsite, a new nade or something just to mess up a little and make it interesting (just as a tryout not in pro scene immediatly), I would just like them to take progressive risks! I dont think first picks would be too healthy because teams had to learn all maps and good teams can be upset more easily, maybe 1 ban only for bo3 ... I still have too admit I am not to unhappy with bo3's most of the times as they are right now, just would like to see them more frequently
2018-09-21 01:54
I know what you mean and personally i'm a decent fan of the Swiss system atm (bo3 would be better). but you said to compare it with other sport tournaments so here we go. Champions League in football has Group stage first, which is basicaly 3 bo2 "games" to determine top4 spots. After that there's a seedings draw of playoffs, which is another set of bo2 (in csgo terms we can say bo3 tbh) matches to determine the winner across 2 games, not just 1, and that's the best way to run a tournament. In tennis you have bo3 or bo5 matches across the entire tournament (bo3 for every tournament and bo5 in grand slams) so each match can last over 5h easily... and its' the same in most sports. So you can't say that other sports have bo1s and it works, because almost no sports have bo1 games to determine who goes through, even in qualifications there's bo2 in football and bo3-5 in tennis/volleyball/basketball/handball or whatever sport :) The only bo1 match is the grand final, and even then some sports in USA mainly have bo5 system in place....
2018-09-21 01:39
champions league (without qualification phase) has 15 match days(cuz the final is one-way). its played through out a whole year. we should use worldcup or euro as a comparison. a basketball/hockey match has four sets, a handball/football match has two sets, a baseball match has ten sets, but they cant be treated as bo4/bo2 matches, cuz the points in every sets are added together to determine the whole match winner, rather than the winner of every set caculated and added up.
2018-09-21 01:52
#17
 | 
Brazil hsk- 
they should just stop with vetoes. every team should veto only ONE map per team, this way,the selected map would be a surprise. so every team would work properly for everymap. no more "bad luck". just veto your worst map and that's it.
2018-09-21 01:40
#32
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
Major used to have a randomiser, was one of the most criticized aspects of the entire system and was bitched about until it was removed. Not a good idea to bring back
2018-09-21 02:03
#56
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
How does that eliminate luck? What if you veto your worst map and they veto their worst map and you happen to end up on their best map that happens to be your second worst map. Randomization is not the answer, if anything its taking a step backwards.
2018-09-21 10:54
#23
 | 
Brazil beckerzin 
swiss bo3 is good but is too long and have a lot of boring games, but major needs a bo5 final for sure
2018-09-21 01:50
All I want is remove bo1s, if the event would take too long then play 2 or even 3 games at the same time.
2018-09-21 01:52
#34
TACO | 
Brazil user2740 
i was just thinking, what would happen if major had 32 teams and it took the World Cup system?
2018-09-21 02:04
I ain't reading this, but I agree, it fucking sucks
2018-09-21 02:05
#38
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
Whats better than in your opinion?
2018-09-21 02:08
GSL (my opinion tho)
2018-09-21 02:09
#44
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
But then you have situations where certain teams are guaranteed not to advance from the very start. Especially in a system like the major where seedings are given as far back as 6 months ago based on the previous major, bad group draws guarantee some teams are going out before any matches are even played (remember when faze, sk, and g2 were all in a group back when they were all top 5/6? One of them was guaranteed to go home from the start). Im not trying to shit on your opinion, just asking how that is any better?
2018-09-21 02:22
#45
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
I should preface this by saying in theory, i think the swiss system is the best system, because IN THEORY, any 8 teams can make it out. Which means the actual best 8 teams can make it out without having to worry about bad group draws. However, in practice, there are some real issues that are hard to find good solutions to. No system is perfect, including even a bo3 swiss
2018-09-21 02:26
BO3 swiss would be a pretty good improvement, more maps, one map wonder teams need to work on a more diverse Map Pool etc. Only Problem would be the Time but thats a minor point, in my opinion.
2018-09-21 12:00
That's actually a good argument, you convinced me, Swiss is actually better in certain situations
2018-09-21 02:36
#49
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
I do think more expirmentation should be done with formats, or even just within the swiss format itself. Swiss is imo definitely better in theory, but some additions need to be made so that in practice is works out as intended. The draws this major really were unbelievably dreadful in round 2 and 3, so i agree there are definitely kinks that need fixing
2018-09-21 02:40
#36
 | 
Russia kovyakov 
I found it pretty fine. No complains
2018-09-21 02:06
#42
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
I think a huge problem comes down to the way the teams themselves approach the format. Seems way to often the favorite team takes a huge underdog lightly, gets upset, and screws the seedings. They need to start taking bo1 seriously, get the underdogs off of their best maps (seriously, when a team makes it through on one map it has nothing to do with the system, and is entirely the fault of the opponents. Pay attention and get them off they map they are winning on), and get the egos in check.
2018-09-21 02:15
As if Valve would care if they'd change the initial seedings to hltv.org ranking standards. Retards always go "oh seedings cant change valve doesnt allow". Wtf is valve gonna do when the major is a week away and the seedings have changed ? Cancel major? The investment of these guys into CS:GO is SO INCREDIBLY minimal that they wouldn't even notice (if they did notice and actually cared about CS:GO, THEYD CHANGE THE FECKING SEEDINGS THEMSELVES) ANY system will be ruined by valves initial seeding of Na'Vi challenger (=pot3) and Quantum shittator fire legend (=pot2), whatever you come up with will be ruined by the retarded valve-seeding from 6 months ago. So step one is changing the seedings, unite and get it changed, not hard. No point changing anything until then. p.s. proper seeding + full b03 double elimination bracket (fuck groups) would be amazing and would potentially make up the best storylines, teams fighting it out coming all the way out of the loserbracket is epic. Only 3 legends btw, 8 legends is ridiculous, 3 would make the 3rd place decider match just as epic as the final.
2018-09-21 02:22
#47
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
Swiss is essentially a triple elimination bracket though. Double elimination deals with bad draws even worse. And how would you deal with the final. To be COMPLETELY fair, the lower bracket would have to win two full series to win the whole thing, but i dont see that ever being implemented for a major (i know esea used to do it, and it led to the finals being a bit wonky). Also, 8 legends spots gives teams who arent going to win the major something to still fight for. Adds tons of extra storylines. I agree something should change, but not as drastic as essentially removing it as only having 3 spots does. I do agree with you that seeding needs to be overhauled. i think that would clear up a ton of issues on its own.
2018-09-21 02:35
Final with a WB/LB is very easy: WB team has to win 2 maps, LB team 3 maps. It's essentially a Bo4. (sweet spot vs too long b05 and not epic enough bo3) It's not rocket science and this has been done in shooters for 20 years+
2018-09-21 16:49
#124
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
Thats not a great way of doing it though dickhead if you actually read what i said about being completely fair. LB already lost a full series going into the final, its not fair to the upper bracket to only lose one series, even with a map advantage, and be knocked out of the tournament.
2018-09-21 16:54
#125
 | 
United States jaeger_steam 
Plus, finals where one team has to win less maps in a series than the other have generally been boring as fuck in cs. Its not a good format to have unequal series. At least with a potential two series final, the series themselves are still equal between the teams.
2018-09-21 17:05
#50
 | 
Brazil mrk15 
Fact is, if Valve cared about CS:GO and made its majors like The International we would have many more tier 1 and 2 teams, much more variety of regions and many more historical moments to remember of. If Dota 2 can get funds for a $25 million prize pool from selling compediuns, so can Cs:go if there where in game microtransactions that added to the prize, not only the stickers. How nice it'd be if we where rewarded in skins for playing during the major, guessing which player would be the MVP of each map, or who will get the most Aces, how many of them would we see, how long would the longest overtime be... etc.
2018-09-21 02:47
So many good ideas, so sad they wont pick up on them :/
2018-09-21 12:03
a system where you dont have a 5 day pause between bo1 games
2018-09-21 10:52
#59
 | 
Russia Nikosimus 
Dota's TI system is the best imo Not a long bo3, not a random bo1, ties are ok if teams both win their picks, makes sense And then you have 2/1 chance(s) in PO, depends on how good you were in the group
2018-09-21 11:06
#61
ZywOo | 
France ZywHere 
the system is good if the team i support wins, that's it.
2018-09-21 11:10
no legends spots, every team has to qualify, only BO3 games in a simple bracket, team that wins moves on to next round. seed teams into brackets according to their spot in the qualifier. number 1 in one qualifier plays vs worst team from another qualifier in the 1st round, etc. this format is the least random you can do without playing either GSL format with BO3s which would take too long, or full round robin which also takes too long even with only BO1s
2018-09-21 11:23
#66
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
So every team that wants to be in the major just signs up and we do infinite bo3s until we have a top 16? Seems efficient
2018-09-21 11:23
its not infinite, every time the amount of teams in qualifier doubles, everyone who qualifies will have to play 1 more bo3 match. the odds of a top team losing a BO3 vs tier 5 mix teams who sign up for fun is very slim.
2018-09-21 11:26
#68
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
Right so let's say... and this is a low estimate 2000 teams want to compete in the major. Do you realize how many bo3s that is that you have to stream and hire people to spectate and cast?
2018-09-21 11:27
yes that would be 2log2000 = 6.6 matches, rounded up to 7. you dont have to stream the qualifier, just allow streamers to sign up and get server access and ppl will stream it btw if too many teams sign up you can consider refusing some applications of least performing teams or increasing sign up fee
2018-09-21 11:28
#71
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
How do you decide who to refuse? Just whoever's last? What if its tied? What if say... g2 have to sign up late because they're waiting to get a new player? Should we deny them but allow RinkyDink to play since they signed up early? That's just way too many matches for one bracket
2018-09-21 11:32
whoever can pay the least or whoever has lowest hltv rating or whatever you want
2018-09-21 11:33
#70
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
This is a graphic for this major that already has easily over 2k teams pbs.twimg.com/media/Df8ISCeXUAAIAN_.jpg:.. And you want them to all play in a massive bracket until top 16? I'm sorry but thats just unpheasable
2018-09-21 11:28
why, open qualifiers dont cost a lot of money. if they already have 1244 teams playing for 8 EU spots then why cant 1244+8 teams play for 16 spots? it barely increases the duration of the qualifier and ensures that top teams have to be able to consistently beat lower tier teams to be present at every major, instead of washed up teams coasting off of previous performance and maintaining their spot with 1 win
2018-09-21 11:31
#76
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
Barely increases the duration? You're changing from bo1 to bo3 and from multiple regions to one bracket. Which by the way would require them to be on LAN
2018-09-21 11:33
a 2-0 bo3 takes only 2 times as long as a bo1. i didnt say put all the regions together. there is a practical reason for regional qualifiers. its so that ppl who cant afford to fly around the world can compete.
2018-09-21 11:34
#81
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
And 3 maps takes 3x as long. There are other tournaments and events, cant take 2 months to do a major
2018-09-21 11:36
you can take a month for a qualifier if the tournament lasts longer than a week
2018-09-21 11:36
#85
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
No... no you cant. 3 days after this major ESL NY starts. Theres no where near enough time for that
2018-09-21 11:38
after the major. which means its over. the issue would be if ESL tries to organize a tournament during the qualifiers for the minor.
2018-09-21 11:40
#90
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
No the issue would be the major would still be going on because qualifiers took so long it pushed the major forward. Or if the qualifiers were long enough before to not affect esl NY it would have affected other tournaments such as eleague
2018-09-21 11:42
the EU open was june 2-16 according to your picture. edit: google misinterpreted my calculation earlier, wolframalpha gives the correct result, you would need to play about 10 BO3s with 1250 teams attending the qualifier this is doable in 2 weeks imo but it would be tight a system whereby the top teams from previous tournaments are seeded into higher rounds of the qualifier would be a good compromise maybe? i just think its bad to let a team keep their spot at the major based on old results. there are 2 majors this year and a lot can change in 6 months.
2018-09-21 12:05
Sorry, but tbh. this idea is just not practical and the fact you're still trying to deffend is pretty pathetic.
2018-09-21 12:07
i didnt say it was practical i said it was the best
2018-09-21 12:21
No, if its not practical its not the best
2018-09-21 12:23
i guess we have a different definition of best
2018-09-21 12:23
The best is the asbolut best. So everything hast to fit. And thats simply not the case with your theory
2018-09-21 12:25
i think the qualification process for the biggest tournament that only happens once every 6 months shouldnt be practical and easy for anyone
2018-09-21 12:27
Yeah, problem is that organizing and carrying out that wouldnt work, because there are other tournaments too. There is not enough money in the price pool to convince team to attend, and invest so much time.
2018-09-21 12:31
if minors werent tier 3 events they could have bigger prize pools and would generate more money because ppl actually watch them, especially the EU minor if teams are seeded into the last or second or third to last round of the qualifier they wont have to spend a lot of time on it, they just have to show they are capable of qualifying.
2018-09-21 12:35
could have would To much Could and would, will never work
2018-09-21 12:37
the current system where teams with big names dont have to put in any effort beyond advancing 1 round 2 times year doesnt work either
2018-09-21 12:42
#132
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
It's not just because they're big names its because theyve had previous success and valve is pretty set on having legend status for teams. That's just how its gonna be Like I said the issue isnt qualification to majors theres usually only 1-2 teams at the major that you can legitimately say "this team shouldn't be here" pretty much every other team is a top team in their region. The issue is seeding with the current system which is a good system it just needs proper seeding and playoff format should be double elimination
2018-09-21 21:29
>Like I said the issue isnt qualification to majors theres usually only 1-2 teams at the major that you can legitimately say "this team shouldn't be here" we have different definitions of what constitutes an issue
2018-09-22 00:48
#138
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
Winstrike Is the only team that has gotten an invite that shouldn't have. I cant think of another team that didnt deserve to be at the major ever
2018-09-22 00:55
NA teams attend majors all the time
2018-09-22 00:55
#140
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
Yeah against teams from around the world at, what was called the major qualifer up until this major.
2018-09-22 01:05
the regional qualifiers qualify for minor tournaments which are really just an offline qualifier for the major tournament, so you cant say that there are 2000+ teams signing up for just the major, its multiple tournaments
2018-09-21 11:35
#84
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
But if it were directly to the major it wouldnt be the way it is now. So yes there would still be 2000+ teams signing up
2018-09-21 11:37
there are currently qualifiers for minors with 1250 teams attending in EU. yes making that best of 3 will make it take longer. but its only 7 BO3s at most. its not like ppl will have to play 100 games. and BO3 will significantly reduce the chances of some tier 5 team fluking through and qualifiying ahead of a good team, whereas if a new team is actually better, they wont have a disadvantage like they have in the current system that is designed to maintain status quo.
2018-09-21 11:39
#92
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
When do fluke teams ever get through the open, minor qualifiers and minors?
2018-09-21 11:43
they usually dont but the minors are not worth watching because there are only tier 2 and lower teams attending and the top teams have too easy of a time maintaining their major spot and dont have to play the minors so even if there are tier 2 teams attending the minors that would beat a team that has major status they cant
2018-09-21 11:57
#130
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
I never said anything about legend spots I said fluke teams never make it through. If tier 2 and 3 matches aren't worth watching then how does having 10 bo3s with the majority being garbage teams make it any better?
2018-09-21 21:18
in the qualifier. that you dont have to watch. so that the teams attending the major are actually almost guaranteed the best teams right now as opposed to the best a while ago.
2018-09-22 00:45
#141
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
It's not guaranteed at all upsets can still happen and it would take way too long
2018-09-22 01:07
responded in wrong place
2018-09-21 12:00
the current system is based on maximising income and sticker sales etc instead of maximising skill of the teams that are present.
2018-09-21 11:31
#88
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
The system for getting to the major is fine as is, you almost always have the top teams from each region at the major. What isnt fine is seeding and playoff format once you get there.
2018-09-21 11:41
> you almost always have the top teams from each region at the major. for example nip and vp have spent a long time with shameful displays at most tournaments they got invited back to based on old results and minors are currently not worth watching. imo valve should not be organizing tier 2 events
2018-09-21 11:53
#131
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
They got invited back to the closed qualifer and sometimes they didn't even qualify. They never got directly invited to the major, that's not how it works.
2018-09-21 21:19
that picture you linked tells a different story
2018-09-22 00:46
#142
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
Yeah because NiP went through the process and deserved to be there
2018-09-22 04:52
teamn do get invited back directly to the major based on 6 month old results
2018-09-22 11:59
#147
 | 
United States Jammin800k 
What? They shouldnt not but valve is intent on it staying that way
2018-09-22 17:28
its infeasible btw but i like ur spelling
2018-09-21 12:23
Swiss is always shit, but what would help: (And Bucholz made it worse) Stop seeding based on the major happend 6 month ago. Stop force seeding "legends" against qualified teams. Either develop an valve ranking system based on the last 6 months performance or, if lazy, use HLTV ranking (all events use hltv stats anyway). And bring back random maps. Sorry, but only way to stop shit teams abusing having shallow Bo1 mappool with never being able to play Bo3.
2018-09-21 11:32
#89
 | 
United States aweirdbanana 
+1 HLTV stats (or if they want to be extra Valve Stats) would help a lot and for random maps
2018-09-21 11:41
A group stage consisting of mainly bo1's where teams have had weeks or months to prepare, together with matching them with "Legends" that performed a lifetime ago as a different roster, if just a recipe for creating a perfect storm of upsets. And that's why we're probably going to have a set of completely boring quarter finals like the ones we watched yesterday with BIG and CoL.
2018-09-21 11:50
#105
 | 
Portugal vicadinsx 
Just use the same thing that football (soccer for fatties) have for years, seed the best teams to go to different groups, the second seeds also goes to different groups and onward. After this, do BO2 against each team, a winner gets 3 points, a draw 1 point, and lose 0 points, the best 2 teams go forth (in case of draw use round/kills to decide who goes next), the second best team for each group plays against the 1st of other group. This freaking works. Now to be even better, teams should have a championship to enter the major so we have an accurate seeding before the major, could go on through about how to do this but this will never freaking happen
2018-09-21 12:04
#114
pronax | 
Hungary bNkR 
gsl > swiss
2018-09-21 12:31
bo6 round robin duhh
2018-09-21 12:33
doesnt
2018-09-21 12:43
nip fans are all 12 year old children it's expected of them to cry
2018-09-21 12:47
32 teams, double elimination, like back old days
2018-09-21 17:15
#129
 | 
Sweden balto_cs 
back to GSL? when u draw against m16r (legend) and navi (challenger) in a group, u have no chance to go through it? i dont get the point that nip fans complain about their draws. i would agree that they will advance if they had better luck, but then another team would say that theyre robbed. theyre just near the line of top8 in this event, so its quite acceptable theyre in or out. astralis beat m16r, so i can say astralis is way more stronger than brazilians. if mibr is qualified, then astrais [deserves] a quaterfinal spot. however nip lost to mibr, how can they say that nip deserves a spot? it nip desreves a quarterfinal spot, then what m16r deserves, a semifinal spot? well then, we should just send the cup to astralis, no need to play the rest? it should be a common sense that team A losing 2-16 to team H and team B losing 10-16 to team H dont necessarily means team B can win against team A. a match, and a tournament is won by a team who wins it in actual games. if u judge "nip do have a shapes that deserves Elite Eight spot, lets put them in", then why dont we do the same with "team C have the best form now, so we just award them the champion, dont waste more time"? any tournament system that has draw needs luck. the only way to decide a champion with no luck is putting all teams in a round-robin. its impossible to use this form unless u just let a few teams to participate in. this would raise more argue like " a 8-team major with a tier 3765 asian team but without nip is sh*t". but if u put like 16 or 24 teams in the round robin, that needs a lot more time and matches, and produces a lot of matches between weak teams that audiences dont want to watch. even this cant guarantee "totally fair", cuz how do u decide the best 16 teams in this tournament? like, EU has 9 spots and NA has 7 spots, then u would argue "why NA #8 isnt in while a weaker EU #9 is in?" to guarantee the "totally fair" u want, u should put all teams (yes, all teams in the world) in this tournament so that everyone gets fair chance. in fact, almost all mainstream sports tournaments (final stage) use single elimination (may or may not with drawn groups) system, and all matches are bo1. this is proven the best possible way for a tournament, and its enough. no matter you are Roger, Rafael or any noname, the system is so simple and fair to every player in the main event: whoever wins 7 bo1 matches, wins the grand slam. there were so many, and there will be more players who meet the final winner too early and end up in a low rank. there were so many, and there will be more players who get a lucky draw all the way through to the later rounds or even finals. there were so many, and there will be more best players and teams that get upset in bo1 matches and lose champions. there were so many, and there will be more teams drawn in a death group and pack up in the group stage. no one says we should use another system. we just admit luck and go forward. cuz we know two rules: if you are better than your opponent, you should win against him. if you are better than any other opponents, you should win the champion.
2018-09-21 18:34
#133
 | 
North America Techno_Lover 
GSL is still a million times better regardless.
2018-09-21 21:30
Use swiss System based on hltv ranking /close
2018-09-22 05:00
I wouldn't say tennis is a good comparison for bo1 but yeah, I think it's the best system
2018-09-22 05:12
#148
 | 
United Kingdom Kimble_ 
GSL
2018-09-22 17:31
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.