Thread has been deleted
Last comment
change major format
United Kingdom Londonistan 
the format right now is unfair for the lower ranked teams. I know that their ranking is adjusted with each round, but they still have to start from the bottom -> this means that they will always more or less have "hard" matchups. The opposite is true for the higher ranked teams who will always have "easy" matchups. I RECOMMEND: change it to Seeding for first round (like what we have right now) + Buchholz for the rest of the tournament
2019-02-18 05:55
Thorin | 
United States Peejster 
That's the point. It encourages teams to perform better to get easier matchups later on duh?
2019-02-18 06:00
Yeah but it always forces the lower-ranked teams to play from a lower footing. Basically, their easier matchups are never truly easy: they go for VERY hard to MODERATELY hard lol.
2019-02-18 06:01
hallzerk | 
African Union FLEMCS 
and they have to be able to beat everyone if they want to win ?
2019-02-18 06:14
um what about top ranked teams then? They can just get easy matchups all five rounds and we just assume they can beat everyone?? and no, you dont need to be able to beat everyone to qualify. that's why there's a best team in the world, 2nd best team and so on
2019-02-18 06:18
"um what about top ranked teams then? They can just get easy matchups all five rounds and we just assume they can beat everyone??" you know most of them lost against lower ranked team in the first week of the major ? and anyway its better to see that then to see for exemple astralis playing against na vi, faze and vitality and to see avangar play against hr big and g2
2019-02-18 06:21
ur supporting my point. The fact that most of them lost against lower ranked teams show that they're not exactly deserving of their rank. And yet, in spite of losing to the lower ranked teams, theyll continue to get easier matchups than the lower ranked teams they lost to will get. How is that fair??
2019-02-18 06:57
so for you it would have be better to see grayhoud play against vici tyloo and spirit and to see ence play against nip vitality and c9? im pretty sure its also the players that choose the ranking so in a way its fair bcs its not base on hltv or the tournament organiser but on the players opinion
2019-02-18 07:00
I would like the matchups to be dependent on their performance throughout the tournament from the first round onwards. If Grayhound play vs ViCi, it is because one of them has been shit and the other has been great. If they've both been shit, then Buchholz won't pair them up. And yes, I don't mind third round matchups where strongest team so far in the tournament (and not strongest in the sense that they were given a ranking that doesn't reflect their form in the tournament) plays weakest team and so forth.
2019-02-18 10:47
"I would like the matchups to be dependent on their performance throughout the tournament from the first round onwards." so just a normal swiss format ? and if for exemple astralis beat liquid 16-14 and vici beat grayhoud 16-8. liquid would have most likely play better then grayhound but they will still be in 0-1 meanwhile grayhound is in the 1-0 group so you can really judge them by their performence either bcs they are not playing against the same team
2019-02-18 10:51
I said keep the seeding for first round and then use Buchholz onwards. So Astralis facing TL will never happen first round. In fact, it should almost never happen unless Ast has been playing real good and TL real shit (like close to bottom), other way around or if both of them have been middle of the road. Part of the reason why Buchholz was such a mess in London was due to not having first round seeding.
2019-02-18 10:54
United States n0rdie 
They r deserving of their rank tho. If complexity beats astralist in a bo1 doesnt automaticly mean that complexity is the best team in the world or that astralis is only a top 50 team. There are flukes and players poping off, especially in bo1s The current format is good as it rewards teams for being good and punishes teams for being bad. If we were to put the best teams against the best and the worst teams against the worst teams, then it would be in teams' best intrest to be bad.
2019-02-18 08:41
that exactly what i wanted to say but i didnt find the word
2019-02-18 09:55
The current format doesn't reward teams for being good / punish teams for being bad relative to their TOURNAMENT form, that's the point. Who cares that Fnatic is ranked #1 if they've been terrible in their Major matches thus far - they're clearly not playing like the #1 team, for instance. ViCi is more or less destined to fight tough opponents regardless of whether they win.
2019-02-18 10:49
Yes but then you'd get absurd matchups later on, like vici - astralis final. By giving "lower teams" other "lower teams" to fight and "higher teams" other "higher teams" you get winners of the "lower teams" and winners of the "higher teams" through the groups which is completely unfair of the losers of the "higher teams" as they would probably destroy the "lower teams". Idk if I made my point clear, it's probably a mess and only like minded people will understand, but eh, it's too early for english.
2019-02-18 08:39
maybe i wasnt clear but i like the fact that the lower team play against the higher team and i also like the fact that qualification and elimination matches are playing on a bo3 at this moment no one can argue about the upset so if a lower team qualify for the playoff he fully deserve it. maybe you wanted to say that to the other guy bcs im fully with u bro
2019-02-18 08:46
Could be that I replied to the wrong guy, my bad in that case. Thanks for staying polite tho :D
2019-02-18 09:54
G2 is way better than vitality
2019-02-18 12:49
idk if they are way better but it you want
2019-02-18 12:53
Russia NOD777 
Why they should have advantage? They sucks and must be eliminated asap. Or they will prove they are good and will fights equal with tops. If low team would advance everyone would cry how boring and stupid major is
2019-02-18 10:13
"Why they should have advantage? They sucks and must be eliminated asap. Or they will prove they are good and will fights equal with tops." They're not going to get any advantages with Buchholz seeding. Their matchups will be determined on their performances in the Major so far alone. What the current system is doing is giving Fnatic easy/easier matchups no matter what because of their initial seeding/ranking. "If low team would advance everyone would cry how boring and stupid major is" This is not a reason to give favorable matchups to certain teams.
2019-02-18 10:17
You are acting like liquid astralis etc wouldnt have pass the groupstage without this seeding. Top tier team dont have to prove their value meanwhile lowtier have to. I dont find it fair for a top team to play against the best team meanwhile a low team against the other low team this seeding is based what other team think about you if anyway you wouldnt be able to upset a top team in a bo1 what the point of possibly giving to a low tier team the chance to go to the playoff.
2019-02-18 13:38
Not quite, if you look at round 4. Vici played vitality, which was the second strongest team in the pool behind ence. Fnatic, who struggled against easy opposition, got a harder opponent in g2.
2019-02-19 11:14
The qualifier ?
2019-02-18 06:02
I believe this is for Legends stage as well.
2019-02-18 06:04
United States SweatyBawlz 
If you're baiting, 7/8 i fell for it but if not, It gives an advantage to the better teams rather than having upset teams play each other and top teams play each other. Let's say in the next stage, NaVi, MIBR, coL, and g2 are all 2-2. Without seeding there's a chance coL & g2 play each other and in turn get a legends spot even tho NaVi & MIBR would squash either team. Git gud and seeding will favor you
2019-02-18 06:08
no im not baiting. im having lunch rn so ill reply to u with the point im trying to make in 1 hr
2019-02-18 06:11
Denmark MeToxi 
Lunch at 5:11 AM british time?
2019-02-18 09:24
overseas atm
2019-02-18 09:59
Denmark MeToxi 
Makes sense ;)
2019-02-18 10:08
your point doesn t matter. lower teams should always play against better teams. being shit and lucky shouldn t give you an advantage. last majors since gsl was removed was enough proof that the system was broken with the swiss system.
2019-02-18 09:28
But with first round matchups (could be BO3) and then Buchholz after, you actually get rewarded for good performances. Vici's not "shit" if they can beat FNC first round in a B03, for instance.
2019-02-18 10:01
yes, like nip did right? or mibr? oh yeah there were 0 good draws last major with that stupid cringe. no thanks, i prefer shit teams to go out and good teams to rape them
2019-02-18 12:13
No proper first round seeding fucked up matchups
2019-02-18 12:18
nope. but don't worry, this format is perfect so i hope they won't change it to force bad teams into play offs like before
2019-02-18 20:59
titz | 
Other wjdx1x 
your suggestion is more hard for low-ranked teams, they'll have to win every game so they can win the championship which is dumb
2019-02-18 06:17
??? no they don't ??? it will still be 3 wins to qualify
2019-02-18 10:02
Norway analpain1337 
Why? As you can see from THE qual this is the best working format?
2019-02-18 06:18
best at fucking over lower ranked teams, sure all the way to the end, Fnatic had the easiest possible matchups for being ranked #1 while Winstrike had the hardest matchups in spite of playing better than Fnatic and NiP (who r higher ranked).
2019-02-18 06:35
And Fnatic still went out...
2019-02-18 06:51
which just further shows how broken this system is...
2019-02-18 06:52
bait or what? Fnatic went out doesnt have anything do with the system, they are trash right now
2019-02-18 07:00
exactly! they were trash throughout the tourney. They shouldn't have continued to have "easy" matchups. A team like Winstrike or Vici kept getting relatively high ranked opponents as reward for them winning their matches.....unfair much?
2019-02-18 08:35
No it means Fnatic is trash
2019-02-18 08:31
yeah they were trash throughout tournament. hence why they shouldn't have kept having "easy" matchups
2019-02-18 08:35
Denmark MeToxi 
And G2 was an easy matchup compared to maybe furia?
2019-02-18 09:26
Denmark MeToxi 
So your argument is that worse teams should make it further in the tournament compared to better teams? EDIT: Wrong comment, sorry ;)
2019-02-18 09:25
My argument is that worse teams aren't actually "worse" teams if they can win against better teams. Yet the format we have right now punishes "worse" teams for winning their matches instead of actually rewarding. The progression is too slow to take effect and they're still facing much stronger opponents than they should second and third round. If they are performing well in the tournament, yes they should absolutely make it further in the tournament. I don't want to see a limping FNC make it through because of only easy matchups.
2019-02-18 10:06
Denmark MeToxi 
As I've mentioned somewhere else. Do you think G2 were the easier matchup for fnatic compared to maybe furia or Vega?
2019-02-18 10:10
Denmark MeToxi 
Also, do you think that Furia, Vega, Vici, Winstrike or Tyloo should've made it over NiP, C9 or G2? If they should then they would've won one of the bo3's that they played. Also, if you think they are getting to strong opponents then it's working isn't it? Because then the strong opponents will win and make it further meaning that the weaker opponents won't make it? Just because 1 team (fnatic) played miserably worse than their ranking it doesn't mean that a team like winstrike is suddenly better than the 8 teams who made it to the next stage. This system actually makes it so it is the 8 best teams who make it further. Renegades for instance is the team who profited for fnatic being bad.
2019-02-18 10:15
Denmark MeToxi 
2019-02-18 09:25
United States kearCS 
This is the best format possible. No fluke teams, just teams that deserve the spot.
2019-02-18 06:25
Finland Fliida 
Earlier people were crying about the lottery style draw for matchups and wanted seeding after the rollercoaster in London, now they get seeding and they cry about there beeing seeding. Seems legit.
2019-02-18 06:27
I dont mind first round seeding. That is good. I mind the seeding being used for the remaining matches.
2019-02-18 06:47
If any team wanna play on major they must wanna win. If they wanna win they need to know how to play vs top teams. If they can't beat them they just don't deserve for major lol
2019-02-18 06:34
This format is basically in every sport that includes playoffs, icehockey,basketball etc etc... better team plays in regular season easier opponent's team gets in playoffs
2019-02-18 06:55
isn't that just a system designed to always try and qualify the "highly ranked" teams (which may or not actually be deserving of their rank) and keep the "lowly ranked" teams out? man that sucks
2019-02-18 08:54
yeah, but people will cry if high ranked teams will be eliminated by other high ranked teams early in tournament. And if there is some random team winning major example gambit, then people cry its shit major etc etc... so there will be allways people complaining no mather what format is
2019-02-18 12:18
+ tru dat
2019-02-18 12:25
This is just what the format is supposed to do. Have the best teams survive the longest in this format because they are the best, and if a team wanna prove otherwise, they have the chance to to it.
2019-02-18 08:49
;_; that's not fair for the lowly ranked teams So sad that it's a format designed to get the higher ranked teams through even though qualification should be performance (in the tournament alone) dependent
2019-02-18 08:52
This is pure logic. It is designed to get the two absolute best teams to the finale, eliminating the lesser on their way
2019-02-18 08:56
Well we don't actually know if they're two "absolute" best teams if they r getting the easiest/close to the easiest matchups possible, do we?
2019-02-18 10:26
Be top team >save strats for final stage >get matched against other top teams early on >either lose valuable strats or lose important matches gg how is that more fair? The only thing lowly ranked teams have to do is be unpredictable and win aim duels, no one is going to watch Avangar demos lmao.
2019-02-18 09:12
Communist spotted
2019-02-18 09:09
Denmark MeToxi 
That is the point of the major. To find the best teams. Therefor the assumed better teams need to face the assumed worse teams as that will ensure the worse teams won't make it further. If they make it further then they of course deserve to be there but if they don't then the presumable best teams make it through making the format successful. This format prevents a team like winstrike making it through by winning against teams like maybe Vici, Furia and Tyloo and ensures that teams like fnatic will have the ability to make it through without facing teams like NRG, Ence and Vitality. Fnatic managed to exit early anyways though which means that they firmly dont deserve to be there
2019-02-18 09:18
Can we agree that this format is designed to "rig" the matchups in favor of the higher ranked teams? You're not going to find the "best" teams and be able to accurately gauge current form if the higher ranked teams are getting only easy matchups while the lower ranked teams are getting only hard ones (and in Vici and Grayhound's cases, hardest ones possible). That's why I propose opening match Bo3 with seeding just like what we have rn BUT Buchholz for the remaining four rounds. Bo3 means odds of initial match being a fluke is very low. Then, the matchups will be seeded according to their performance thus far. The reason Buchholz was somewhat of a mess in London was because of lack of B03 in advancement/disqual + lack of first round seeding. Thoughts are welcome, of course.
2019-02-18 10:15
Denmark MeToxi 
But here's where we disagree. I think the system is good because it "rigs" the system. If the weaker opponents get all the hard opponents then the system is working since the weaker opponents will be sorted out of the mix. The problem would only occur if not all the matchups would be weak vs hard. If say 4 of the matchups is weak vs hard and two is hard vs hard and two is weak vs weak then that would break the system as the hard vs hard teams will go in the losers round and risk facing eachother to go down 0 - 2. Then that would risk eliminating a weak team that might otherwise have made it further to 2 - 2 like winstrike, tyloo and vici did. Every round needs to be weak vs hard(Or as close as it gets) and then the system works. If a team wins an upset victory then they'll be considered a better team and therefor the next round they'll maybe be considered a medium team by the system. (Depending on the opponents they beat ofc.). They'll ofc still be considered weaker as the system will still recognize the favorites who won their matchups as the better team. If the upset victor in round 1 then really is a good team then they should still be able to beat a hard team. If not, then they'll be sorted out the way that all the underdogs did this tournament so far. You saw yourself that the teams like vici and winstrike (Both considered weak teams) made it this far which in itself is quite impressive. If C9 and NiP had continued to play poorly then they would've probably made it. But C9 and NiP both managed to get into form and is therefor currently the better teams whom both is better teams and therefor will bring better competition to the next stage. Not just upset potential.
2019-02-18 10:26
"If the weaker opponents get all the hard opponents then the system is working since the weaker opponents will be sorted out of the mix." For instance, ViCi beat Fnatic (#1) and yet they had to face NRG (#2) in the second round no matter how well they performed in their first match. You can't really say that ViCi is a "weak" team that deserves to not qualify because they lost to the #1 and #2 ranked teams now, can you? On the other hand, you have Fnatic (#1) losing both of their first two matches to ViCi (#16) and Winstrike (#15) and YET was able to face Grayhound (#14) for their elim. match. Handicap after handicap even when their performance thus far has not justified any. What the system is doing in Fnatic's case is preventing a highly ranked BUT weak team (form-wise so far) from getting sorted of out of the mix by giving them the easiest possible opponents every time.
2019-02-18 10:37
What are you on about???? use your brain ffs. Vici beat fnatic, 1 of teams that played the worst CS in the challengers stage. you feel like they should have gotten a easy match in the second round. and therefore in the 3rd aswell. just because they won "1" best of one against a bad fnatic. if Vici was so good they would have made it through anyway. they were not good enough and neither was fnatic.
2019-02-18 10:48
I suggested Bo3 for opening match as well. And yes, ViCi should have been rewarded with a favorable match-up for their second match due to their win on such a huge favorite in their first. ViCi's third matchup will be dependent on their second round.
2019-02-18 11:27
Denmark MeToxi 
I was gonna write a lot of the same with different examples but then I found this and changed my mind. As you see, fnatic lost all of 4 elo after the first match and vici got 4. From start to finish, fnatic went from ranked 1st to ranked 9th. The problem isn't the system in this case (imo) it is that fnatic hugely underperformed for what teams thought of them OR that teams just had way to high hopes for fnatic. If teams had ranked the with a little less elo then I think that fnatic would've ended close to 16th. Also, look at this one: And this one is also interesting as it shows what different teams think. ViCi is ironically the team that voted fnatic the lowest as 7th and was probably discarded as other teams voted fnatic as 1st, 2nd and 3rd:
2019-02-18 11:24
Denmark MeToxi 
Just to add to that, if every round is weak vs hard then it minimizes the upsets that result in them going through since the system constantly changes who's better and who's worse while still considering that upsets don't necessarily happens twice and therefor matches so the upsets needs to happen twice if an upset team should make it through. Then an upset team earns the right as one of the best 8 teams.
2019-02-18 10:33
"since the system constantly changes who's better and who's worse" You're right, it does change. Here's the problem, the change is too slow to take effect.
2019-02-18 10:38
Poland DzonPrice 
Astralis - AVANGAR Liquid - Vitality MiBR - Complexity Na'Vi - Ence Faze - G2 NRG - HellRaisers NiP - Renegades C9 - BIG 1st round
2019-02-18 09:22
ez for renegades
2019-02-18 10:22
Denmark MeToxi 
1. Astralis 2. Liquid 3. Na'Vi 4. MiBR 5. FaZe 6. NRG 7. Vitality 8. Ence 9. C9 10. NiP 11. Avangar 12. G2 13. Renegades 14. BiG 15. Hellraisers 16. coL Astralis - coL Liquid - HellRaisers Na'Vi - BiG MiBR - Renegades FaZe - G2 NRG - Avangar Vitality - NiP Ence - C9 This is just my ranking from the top of my mind. I'm open to suggestions.
2019-02-18 10:42
Poland DzonPrice 
I based my match-ups on ESL ranking, tommorow we will see who was correct
2019-02-18 12:17
Denmark MeToxi 
I thought the rankings would be based on a new one made by the teams though.
2019-02-18 12:31
Poland DzonPrice 
My picks - 0/8 Your - 1/8
2019-02-19 12:28
They are partially using Buchholz for this too, the problem is that winning against a high tier team doesn't seem to change the ranking of the higher or lower tier team and they keep getting matchups from the initial seeding. The points "progression" isn't change fast enough to make a difference for the matchups.
2019-02-18 09:33
correct. they're weren't using Buchholz for this, just a modified version.
2019-02-18 09:37
Denmark MeToxi 
Fnatic was only fourth seed in round 4 where they were 1 - 2 down. C9, G2 and NiP all had better seeds than fnatic in that round despite some of them being ranked much lower in the initial ranking and still loosing and winning the same amount. This goes to show that the fact that fnatic lost to some of the worst seeded teams from each round actually did have an impact. It made sure that fnatic wouldn't have an easy matchup in round 4.
2019-02-19 09:03
At the point of round 4 they already lost to the worst seeded teams twice and still got Grayhound on round 3, which got out 0-3. They shouldn't be 4th seed by the time of round 4, even round 3, which just support my point that the seeding change isn't happening as fast as it should, as there is not enough rounds to actually make a big difference overall.
2019-02-19 11:27
Denmark MeToxi 
They did lose elo though and they lost a lot. They lost 4 elo in the first round. The problem was that they under performed so much more than the norm. Like an enormous amount. They had to lose 13 elo in total to become the worst seeded team. The problem here is NOT the system but rather the fact that the major is in the beginning of the season so players have no idea on how teams will perform and therefor base it on practice/what little events there has been before the major and the performance the teams ended on last season. The system is next to perfect. The problem is valve.
2019-02-19 11:35
I think the only change that would be interesting to see would be a lower bracket system
2019-02-18 09:34
well that would mean a new format altogether but interesting suggestion
2019-02-18 09:38
i would like playoffs (top6 higher) to be lower bracket double elimination, but that would take too long for csgo.
2019-02-18 09:45
I mean it works for Dota 2 and games are similar length once you factor in drafting. Imagine a major with two groups of 8, round robin system and wb and lb. would be a beast of a tournament but could be awesome
2019-02-18 10:36
It would be amazing, by just adding bo3 elim matches this major is already better. The time problem would be more on grand finals that on double elim the winner needs to lose 2 bo3, there is already players that complain about bo5 finals taking too long (you could replace a bo3 with a bo5, but is not the same thing)
2019-02-18 10:59
United Kingdom Lightning_DC_ 
Bucholz at FACEIT major somehow managed to even worse than random draws. I like the IEM system
2019-02-18 09:35
I think it was partially because they didn't have proper First Round seeding. I propose keeping that but using Buchholz for the other four rounds.
2019-02-18 09:38
Denmark MeToxi 
I actually think this sort of seeding is the best we've ever seen. The problem with the buchholz at faceit major was that a few teams had early upsets(along with a few bad initial matchups) and that ruined the system. Proper initial round seedings wouldn't make the buchholz system better than this one since the upsets would still matter to much. Especially when most of the better teams will enter a major a bit shaky as it is right after the player breaks. That fnatic performed as poorly as they did, did in the end punish them as they had to face G2 in round 4 as I also said in:
2019-02-19 09:26
Romania hiei59 say that a lower team should be able to qualify only because it's lower ranked? Are you fucking kidding me? Of course low ranked teams are supposed to beat high ranked teams if they won't to move forward the tournament. That's how life works. I don't know if you are following football, but imagine UCL with 4 group of teams all like PSG, Juve, Barca...and the other 4 groups with Porto, Schalke etc. And then the finale would be 1 team for the "godlike" groups and one from the other 4 groups. Would that be entertaining to watch?
2019-02-18 09:52
I never said that. If anything, I said the opposite. A higher ranked team shouldn't be able to consistently get easy matchups (and lower teams get hard matchups) only because of their "prestige" in the eyes of their opponents. Which is where Buchholz comes in - it takes into account tournament performance and seeds each round accordingly. Low ranked teams are not supposed to be fighting just high ranked teams to advance just like high ranked teams are not supposed to be fighting just low ranked teams to advance. Which is what this system is currently promoting.
2019-02-18 10:09
Romania hiei59 
It happened here, it's the first time we see this format in play and I don't understand the hate. Let's see the next stage or maybe even the next major before saying it needs to be changed again. The previous format was worse actually.
2019-02-18 10:11
Oh, I'm not hating. I'm suggesting a change. Of course I agree that previous format was worse. There was no seeding for first round. Advancement matches and non 2-2 elim. matches weren't even Bo3. btw, ur argument that it would/would not be "entertaining" to watch is not a reason to promote a broken format.
2019-02-18 10:20
Romania hiei59 
We just agreed that it's better than the previous. Just give them some time to adjust it.
2019-02-18 10:22
Fair enough. I'm not saying change it tomorrow, did I? ;)
2019-02-18 10:24
India pm_oldmonk 
Maybe we need to see how the legends stage pans out as there are lot of question marks around some of the "top" teams like faze, navi, mibr... Considering this is the first time for this new format, we should wait till the end of the tournament to get a clearer picture.. So far i found the format to be promising, in the challengers stage. I'm not some hotshot analyst but from my knowledge of the game, the deserving teams progressed afterall. Let's see in the legends stage.
2019-02-18 11:00
Denmark MeToxi 
And thats what you're missing. The initial seeding isn't based on their prestige. It is based on a mix of average skill level and current form. It isn't a ranking of most to least prestigious teams but rather on who the better team is on paper. Not all teams is consistent which is why you saw fnatic go out in the new challengers stage. Because fnatic underperformed incredibly much compared to their average skill level. Counter-strike isn't as black&white as you make it to be.
2019-02-19 11:19
because simply if lower teams get to the major = no entertainment
2019-02-18 10:02
I presume this is why more ppl aren't pointing out the issue with the current system. It's because their fav teams got through.
2019-02-18 10:18
Denmark MeToxi 
Its because the best teams made it through.
2019-02-19 11:03
best format ever, you are stupid
2019-02-18 10:16
nice argument
2019-02-18 10:17
Don´t understand why a lower ranked team should have an easier way to the top then a higher ranked team? The new system is great and will probably make a sick final with a lot of viewers cuz of two (hopefully) high ranked teams meet. Teams that are higher ranked have played their way there for a long time. It's not like a lower ranked team have been on top for a long period of time, if so they would not be considered underdogs, right? But if the lower teams actually are better, then they will win their matches and go trough to play off. Simple as that. You have to consider the major as a big economy as well, the biggest fan base lies in the biggest teams (higher seeded teams). So if you still want csgo to grow the fans have to put in money in the big teams. If the big teams don't succeed as expected fans will be disapointed and not invest as much money. And the orgs are the ones paying for the big names such as coldzera, s1mple, f0rest, Niko etc...
2019-02-18 10:16
We are talking about the Major, which should always be the biggest CS tournament of the year. It's like World Cup on football, The International on Dota 2 etc. There should be THE best of the best playing against each other. If you aren't good enough, you simply dont belong there. This system works (Maybe seeding should be a bit different, but more BO3:s, the better tbf). I don't care who is in the finals, there can be Astralis Vs ViCI, thats okay, I will still watch it. In my opinion it would be dumb to NOT watch the biggest match of the tournament of the year, based on what overall ranking one of the two finalists or both are. That tells you that you aren't really a enthuastic CSGO viewer. Sure, most likely we would have much more close and epic games if you have the two BEST in terms of ranking and overall performance (for example NIPvsFNATIC finals a long time ago etc, Virtus Pro vs SK Gaming, NIP vs VeryGames etc.) but the fact that an underdog team can climb up their way to the major final, it is something you have to give BIG (no pun intended) respect. They have fought the biggest and baddest, the best teams, to achieve something great = they have earned their place in the top. BO1:s are too much fluke, and there is so many variables which can taken into account, that may affect the end result of the game. BO3 is the most fair solution, since BOTH teams have a map of their own pick to choose, and the last map pick is based on the bans of the teams, so you have to use your wits for good vetoing. This is the first notable thing you see when you compare best teams to Tier 2 teams; the vetoing process of the two. And before anyone says, no BO1 doesn't justify consistency, BO3. If you can keep up/dominate in a BO3, you are consistently doing something. If you win one BO1 now and then, it doesn't tell you anything about the true skill level you have. All in all, it ain't any easier to better teams when competing, they are fighting at their own level at their counterparts. Just like in World Cup, why worse teams should be "allowed to get an easier route to the final?" They dont, and neither do the better ones. Group stage is a mix of best and not so good teams, but when it comes to the playoffs, there are the best of the tournament, they deserve the place with their work they've done, and they will face their rivals. If an underdog (like complexity for example) gets to the final of the major, it is super awesome and no-one should take that away from them, since other teams have had EXACT same chances, but just didn't excel at that.
2019-02-18 10:20
so....ur supporting my point then?
2019-02-18 10:21
In some ways, yes, in others no. There is no perfect system in any competetive sport. In the end, it all comes down to the skills of the teams/players, whether or not they can achieve greatness or not. Can you do changes for the system that may help the lower tier teams? Maybe yes. Is it fair to the better ones? Maybe not. What about the other way around? There is always a little or a big fault in all the system, but in the end, like I said, it still comes down to skill. ALL the teams in BO1 need a bit of a luck, a really good day overall, to perform at the best. Things that players can do for that is to warm up properly, work as a real unit, have the right mentality to each game etc. There is so many variables affecting it. Do remember though, that many big teams are suffering also just like lower tier teams. Look at the teams who didn't even make the Challengers team: mousesports, Optic etc. Overall you might think they are better than lets say Avangar, ViCi etc. Yet Avangar is at the Legends now, ViCi almost made it there. Fnatic is not legends stage, but teams like Vitality and G2 are. Just like in any kind of business and sport; you cannot please everyone. But what you can do is do your EVERYTHING to become as good as possible, it will definiately pay off in the long run, no matter whether tier 1 or tier 2 team.
2019-02-18 10:29
France Paprii 
I don't get your point tbh. If they are lower teams and want to proove that they are good they need to play against t1 teams and have "hard" matchups. Why let a chance to a bad team to go threw Legends because they beat other lower teams, they will just get destroyed in playoffs and that's all. And also why forcing "big" teams to destroyed each other during the Legends stage and not in playoff? Will just make the playoff boring af
2019-02-18 10:21
Lower teams won't be fighting just other low ranked teams or just high ranked teams, that's the point. Seeding should be tournament performance dependent, not what people think your form is coming into the Major.
2019-02-18 10:24
Denmark MeToxi 
So what you're saying is that you would prefer a Astralis vs Liquid, MiBR vs Avangar and coL vs HR matchup in round 5 rather than a Astralis vs coL, Liquid vs HR and MiBR vs Avangar matchups in new legends stage? How is that fair to Astralis or Liquid? Just because coL shouldn't play "harder teams". If coL wants to make playoffs they need to beat the hard teams as all tier 1 teams is de facto hard teams. And it is de facto only tier 1 teams who should make it to playoffs as they are de facto the better teams.
2019-02-19 11:12
who says ez for upper team,?? this format is good, until you don't have proper knowledge about it
2019-02-18 10:27
Mousesports wasn't even in this Qualifier.....
2019-02-18 10:22
sorry i am high
2019-02-18 10:34
2019-02-18 10:39
Welcome to the concept of cheating.
2019-02-18 10:35
basically That's why I'm suggesting changing it.
2019-02-18 10:41
Geez, i typoed an entire word. Concept of seeding. I was barely awake at 10am, hadn't really slept..
2019-02-18 16:22
I disagree. This system is quite fair imo. you have plenty opportunities to prove yourself as a team. its a major and no charity. the good thing is it's about performance and not the brand f.e. fnatic. you get beaten, you are done. simple as that. meanwhile bo3 decided about being the better team to advance and compete with the teams in the legends stage. solid system imo. everyone had their shot!
2019-02-18 10:36
The matches are rigged in favor of the favorites/higher ranked teams. This is the opposite of fair. Fnatic for instance faced #16,#15 and #14 teams for their first three matches in spite of losing the first 2 matches. ViCi's scenario was the exact opposite in spite of winning their first one. Fair my ass
2019-02-18 10:42
United Kingdom EKersh 
How do we know the matches are rigged in favour of the higher ranked teams? Just because they are lower ranked doesn't mean they are worse. The whole point of the major is to single out the better teams. If you can't win against the higher ranked teams you don't deserve to win. That's how tournaments work. Sometimes the higher ranked teams will go against the lower ranked teams. So what? If the lower ranked teams want to prove themselves and win, they have to win against any teams they face.
2019-02-19 09:16
ile | 
Finland Vkims 
Its not unfair
2019-02-18 10:43
The matches are rigged in favor of the favorites/higher ranked teams. This is the opposite of fair. Fnatic for instance faced #16,#15 and #14 teams for their first three matches in spite of losing the first 2 matches. ViCi's scenario was the exact opposite in spite of winning their first one. You should not be punished for winning and rewarded for losing.
2019-02-18 10:43
ile | 
Finland Vkims 
This is just like major should work. If you win game,you should face better opponents. If you lose game, you should face worse opponent. Fnatic lost twogames=they got bad opponents. Vici won=they got good opponents
2019-02-18 10:48
The problem is even if NRG for example wins their games, they're never going to face better opponents. They will always have close to the easiest opponents possible. On the other hand, if ViCi loses their games, they will keep facing tough opponents no matter what because they're tied to their low ranking.
2019-02-18 10:52
ile | 
Finland Vkims 
If vici would have lost their first game for example, they wouod have got worse team in the next round. And younhave to remember seeding doesnt tell you how good teams actually are
2019-02-18 10:57
no they wouldn't. Vici's rank coming into Major was 14.07. If they lose their first game, they would have gotten the hardest possible opponent in the 0-1 bracket. Hard teams in this case is relative to their group, not the whole 16 team circuit.
2019-02-18 10:59
ile | 
Finland Vkims 
Highest seeded 0-1 would still be worse than what they had in forst round
2019-02-18 11:03
Yes but they will keep getting the toughest opponents in the group THEY are in because of their first round ranking. Their fate has been predetermined more or less
2019-02-18 12:31
Can someone pls make this thread for me because i have not been active enough? :) Subject: Headset issue Hyperx Cloud Alpha So when i bought this headset about a year ago i had this same problem what im having now but that time i somehow solved it but cant remember how I hear this weird static noise all the time and i can hear my own voice trough headphones when i speak but others cant hear me on ts/mumble. I've already tried plugging the wires both back and front panel, doesnt work. I tried to install audiodrivers but windows says that i already have the newest ones. I've been trying everything on recording device settings but nothing seems to help...
2019-02-18 10:57
It is just a number. The teams will have to play and win every time. In games like WoW you have itemlevel which affects gameplay but not in CS:GO. You lose you go home. You win you go to the next stage. It is the same for every single team in every single game.
2019-02-18 10:59
It is a number which determines how hard the opponent you face each time is. The #4 ranked team may go 0-3 if they have to face #1,2,3 in a row for instance. Not all matches are equal
2019-02-18 12:33
It is just a number. The teams will have to play and win every time. In games like WoW you have itemlevel which affects gameplay but not in CS:GO. You lose you go home. You win you go to the next stage. It is the same for every single team in every single game
2019-02-18 12:37
1st and 2nd in previous major vs 3-0 Teams 3rd-4th in previous major vs 3-1 Teams 5th-8th in previous major vs 3-2 Teams (?)
2019-02-18 10:59
but if this happeens mmany lower rank teams will be in the playoffs and thier be boring 1 sided maps there
2019-02-18 11:00
not necessarily. you'll still have Bo3 so if those lower ranked teams beat higher ranked teams in a Bo3, I'd say they deserve it. Then you have to remember Buchholz takes into account only performance/form in this Major thus far.
2019-02-18 11:01
hmmm what if they change the entire system teams that make it to top 8 atleast in a given number of of big tournaments get an Invite directly teams with a fewer top 8 can can be invited to the major quals The left over teams have to got through the minor process that way we will have the best teams at the major based on thier peformance in the entire season. But your idea is also Ok
2019-02-18 19:43
oskar | 
Czech Republic PaYaB 
Nope, that's the thing why major lacked "professionality" for me. For example, imagine fifa world cup without seeding, it would be a mess.(like faceit major with their "seeding", when nip or mouz played only top8 teams and both failed to qualify and fnatic with a very good draws and bad lineup at the time didn't go through + mouz lost their major spot) And if you don't get this, you probably have no idea how it should work. This is by far a major with the best system.
2019-02-18 11:03
I said keep the Seeding for the first round BUT don't tie teams to that initial seeding in the remaining rounds. Use Buchholz instead.
2019-02-18 11:02
oskar | 
Czech Republic PaYaB 
Yes, great idea. That Buchholz that made mouz play FaZe in 0-2 bracket, meanwhile the next game was C9-Winstrike..
2019-02-18 11:12
That's because there was no First Round seeding, not because of Buchholz.
2019-02-18 11:16
BUCHHOLZ IS RETARDED MEN Even though Vici, Winstrike and Tyloo should've probably made it time :)))
2019-02-18 11:31
Buchholz is not retarded. It takes into account how well the teams you've faced have been performing in the tournament thus far and seeds accordingly which is imo better than this seeding. Although I agree that first round matchups should keep this seeding used right now + be Bo3 matches.
2019-02-18 11:33
Pls Look at London matchups from NiP first.
2019-02-18 11:33
Not having proper first round seeding fucks everything up
2019-02-18 11:37
Liquid, NaVi, mouz, mibr, Vega You May understand how upset I was that NiP had to play against 4 top6 teams
2019-02-18 11:38
2019-02-18 12:19
United States Freakmode 
It’s a fucking MAJOR man. May the BEST team win. Not some shit team who only had to beat other shit teams.
2019-02-18 12:25
The funny thing is had Fnatic gone through, they would have beaten shit teams to do so. Would you consider them worthy of qualifying if that happened, seeing that FNC only had to beat "other shit teams"?
2019-02-18 12:35
United States Freakmode 
Whatever ur asking here please ask it more clearly.
2019-02-18 12:44
Would you have considered FNATIC worthy of qualifying if they had mostly easy matchups (against literally #16,#15,#14)? Because that's exactly what would have happened had they qualify.
2019-02-18 14:07
That is not true, if fnatic won those first matches, the matches to go through would have been against teams like NRG and so. because those were also in the 2-0 pool. The reason fnatic got easy matches is because they lost and had to play other teams that also lost. and those teams were the less good teams
2019-02-18 13:58
FNC would never have faced NRG in the second round/2-0 pool. Not possible. Fnatic did not get easy matches because they lost. They got easy matches because of their initial seed which was the highest out of all the teams. Their massive ranking advantage meant that they would get the easiest/close to the easiest matchups in whatever pool they played in.
2019-02-18 14:07
There is actually some sort of Buchholtz seeding going on in between the rounds. They have adjusted the rankings of the teams after every round
2019-02-19 09:36
Korea XigNw0w 
They have to work harder
2019-02-19 11:05
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.