Comments (42)
 -crow- |
Dec 1 2007 5:13PM |
| Totally agree. | |
 COLDUNN |
Dec 1 2007 5:16PM |
|
The current system accounts for the fact that some tournaments will be truly "stacked" with top players who have already qualified, while other tournaments do not have as many top players. fox never managed to place higher than any of the people above them in WSVG London, so it's not like he proved all that much. Basically he outplaced 2GD at WSVG Dallas and 2GD outplaced him at WSVG London, so they broke about even and 2GD just got the luckier side of the deal. "It turns out that his fourth place was worth more than his third in the opener in Kentucky." - The only difference was that toxic showed up for WSVG London and considering that he is pretty much the #1 Quake 4 player right now, that seems pretty close to even to me. It might not be the perfect setup, but it is far from absurd if you ask me... In fact, I think that adding up results from the entire series would be worse, because then it turns those extra spots into a race for who can attend the most events. I don't want Joe Bob to be in the Grand Finals because ATI sponsored him to travel to every single event while say LoSt-CaUsE placed 3rd at the biggest event of the year, but couldn't afford to attend any others. Now I do agree that the seeding process is messed up, because it's basically what you want to turn the qualifying process into. You said it yourself that all of the people in the Grand Finals are considered the best in the game, while the seeds are messed up. So why would you want to make the qualifying process mimic the seeding one??? |
|
 Carmac |
Dec 1 2007 5:25PM |
|
#2 You can argue about individual cases here (Toxic was here, Toxic was not here), but a system that allows situation 2 to happen is wrong, it's as simple as that. Add up the number of points fox got for the entire WSVG so far and compare to 2GD's and let's see how they stack up. I am sure fox's 3rd at Dreamhack (arguably the most difficult tournament next to ISC), 6th at ISC and 7th at WSVG London all stack up well against 2GD's 9-12th at Dreamhack, 8th at ISC and 6th in London. |
|
|
iTG`SyN |
Dec 1 2007 5:28PM |
| the WSVG is lol | |
|
Carmac |
Dec 1 2007 5:28PM |
| I would like to add I really fucking hate this picture of me. | |
|
COLDUNN |
Dec 1 2007 5:59PM |
|
The problem is that even you used the word arguably, so how do you put a true weight on every event? I think WSVG prefers to use an actual set of rules or algorithm of sorts for these things, not have a panel of judges or something that invokes the potential for bias to pop up. Even if you ignore that though, in the end it would still come down to who attends more events, unless you put such a steep point curve that it rendered the idea of a point total useless. I know you see this problem because you pointed out that the point total doesn't work for seeding, so why call for it to be used in something more important? I don't mean to be jumping down your throat here because I'm glad you're taking the time to help non-GBT tournaments improve, but I think a better solution needs to be made. |
|
|
Carmac |
Dec 1 2007 6:16PM |
|
#6 Wonderful. You mention that the system is designed because some of the tournaments are more stacked than others. That's plain crap, because this way you would have to put the stacked events as late in the calendar as possible. With the current rules you have the absurd situation where it's better to place 6th in a mediocre event than to place 3rd in a stacked one. If you don't see the harm in that, I suggest you get yourself some glasses. Depending on how the points are distributed in events, it can come down to who attends more events or it can come down to who places decent in one or two. Just because coming up with a system that actually works is difficult doesn't mean that you should go with an easy but crippled one. Besides, if it's a World SERIES thing, shouldn't it be a series of tournaments that players attend, then? The point total does not work for seeding because there are not enough events to get the points from. There were THREE tournaments players were allowed to attend. In this case it is plain stupid to ignore the fact that there's EVIDENCE that one player or the other should not be seeded 8th. |
|
|
adelphio |
Dec 1 2006 6:35PM |
|
what is the motivation for the competitors to attend when the prizes are HORRIBLE remember LANWAR in Kentucky(I drove down to see it) Fatal1ty won a Fatal1ty Sound Card. Yeah, there are reasons that high profile players don't travel to each event. With last year's World Tour there was enough money on the line that there were no excuses, but with so little money, why should the qualified players care about traveling just for practice? |
|
|
Carmac |
Dec 1 2007 6:39PM |
|
I am not sure if this is the place to lambast the WSVG for this. Either the players want to or they don't. The WSVG does not have an obligation towards anyone to put up any prizes at all. |
|
|
COLDUNN |
Dec 1 2007 9:35PM |
| Edit: Nevermind, forget it :) | |
|
wolfwood_ |
Dec 1 2007 10:21PM |
| Fantastico article, carmac. | |
 Walkaaq |
Dec 2 2007 12:22AM |
|
#10 .....Why bother running an event when you can't even organize one? Let alone defend your position on WHY it was organized the way it was. Any random person that puts 30 minutes of thought into running a World series could have forseen these problems and fixed them in an isntant. Sure some solutions are better then others but...having a solution is better then not having one. Here is a list of ways you could have fixed this.. -local country berths. -have an ACTUAL point system...instead of this malarky. -make sure ALL players attend EACH event. Hard and not very economically sound...but its better then having your event look like it was run by 10 year olds. -Run these events like the Pro-Amature events. As soon as the professionals qualify the amatures have their chance. -Specific country qualifiers like ESWC and the WCG -actually have decent prizes that will entice people to show up for ALL events? -have seperate tournies at each event? One for qualifying (so the players that haven't qaulied have a chance) and another tourny for ALL players who wish to win money etc. I understand that last idea sounds flakey but if you would like I can explain it so it is completely SOUND. Unlike all of your events. Anyway...thats just a random gamers opinion on this matter is...but then again the WSVG obviously doesn't give a damn about the gamers, so why do I bother? |
|
|
Carmac |
Dec 2 2007 12:35AM |
|
I wouldn't say they don't give a damn about gamers. I just don't think they have someone who knows sports inside-out on their team. It's not easy to pick something like this out. It seems like they had no one to do it, though. I'm a judo referee and I have no problems with tournament structures and rules. Also, the WSVG should definitely get rid of this double elimination stupidity... but that's a different story. |
|
 Dird |
Dec 2 2007 3:33AM |
|
cooller did crap in that polish tournie so hes not in the best shape. if he is in shape then it means exciting matches from the start of the tournie. its double elim and u have to beat the best players to win so wats the biggie "The real question is, was 2GD's sixth place worth more than fox's third at DreamHack?" - not the real question at all. the rules specify top 2 and he didnt make it. the game was newer then too. 2gd's 6th is better than fox's 7th @ UK and thats wat matters |
|
 Ghostgirl |
Dec 2 2007 5:04AM |
|
Is this system really that unfair though? I was just thinking. If it only takes you winning a 1st or 2nd place once to qualify for the WSVG, isn't it fair that you also only have to place highest below anyone who already qualified once to get the berth thingie. And if you always end third or fourth with random players, then you probably really are mediocre, right? While when you end second best to someone who already won 1st or 2nd place at other events, assuming there are not only 4 people competing, that could actually mean something. So maybe yes, sometimes a 6th place is better then a third? (It would if all players who didn't qualify in the first tourney would attend the other tourneys where the top 2 of the first went to). The people who already qualified earlier are like a benchmark when they show up at other tourneys in this system. And I can imagine that it would motivate other players to join a tourney where a winner from a previous one attends to, because they could win an "easy" spot (though it shouldn't be easy if a lot of people still showed up). In cases where only 4 people show up, it wouldn't have been fair with the other system either, right? |
|
|
Carmac |
Dec 2 2007 5:49AM |
|
#15 Why should a third place at the start of the season be worth LESS than a sixth or even an 8th at the end of it? How about two players only attend one event each? Let's say Player A got 3rd in the first tournament of the series and Player B got 8th in the last tournament of the series. Both were the only events those players attend. Why should Player B qualify to the finals? All you wrote is a bunch of sophistic drivel. |
|
|
Ghostgirl |
Dec 2 2007 6:32AM |
|
#16 I already tried to explain to you on MSN, but I'll copy paste here to explain to the other people reading this as well. (PS: I know I'm playing the devils advocate here, but I'm seriously curious about this, not just trying to give Carmac a headache ;) ) Well in that case anyone who would have paid attention would know the 8th place is a free ticket to the finals if all other 7 players had already qualified before. So player B deserves it because he simply bothered to show up (an effort some players might underestimate. Cooller for example?). Any player who disagrees should have entered the tourney and beat player B to claim the ticket himself. It seems pretty simple to me :| |
|
|
Carmac |
Dec 2 2007 7:20AM |
|
Yeah, it's pretty fucking simple - no one argues that. But it's pretty fucking broken and it somehow seems to elude you. I have no idea why. |
|
|
Dird |
Dec 2 2007 8:09AM |
|
#16 because it was just that. the start where not every1 had played it much AND it didnt have all the top players there since it clashed with lanwar ur idea is just as broken. fatality joined half way through so hes at a big disadvantage with points. the best players step up to the plate wen they need to. fat went ISC and got a place for the finals with 4th; fox got 6th. 2gd got 1 at UK with 6th; fox got 7th. the ones who can go the distance shud be able to do just that |
|
|
Carmac |
Dec 2 2007 8:40AM |
| Dird, Fatal1ty started at Lanwar. Get your facts straight. | |
|
Walkaaq |
Dec 2 2007 8:56AM |
|
I see your point Carmac I used to organize tournies every weekend for magic the gathering (yes I am a nerd) so maybe I just see it differntly. But if they are trying to be a professional organization that comes to other peoples LAN events to help them and do a pro-world series....they shouldn't have these muck ups at all. |
|
|
[vA]Ghost9 |
Dec 2 2007 10:51AM |
| I agree with the article. | |
|
Dird |
Dec 2 2007 11:59AM |
|
lollylops points is still shit why shud a crapper player go to the finals just because they went to all events and finished 6-8th each time. test that theory: sum unknown/not strongly sponsored player goes to 1 event (say uk) & stuns every1 by coming 2nd - itd suggest hes better than the 6-8 guy but he didnt finish 1st so no auto place and doesnt have the enuff points to make top 8 + he has no chance to as its the last b4 the finals leaves limited chance for an upset fox has had 3 chances to make it and failed at all 3 deal wit it. he seems to have |
|
|
Adv3nt |
Dec 2 2007 12:28PM |
|
I think the better question is: other than for seeding players after Lanwar and Dreamhack, was/is the points system really that useful? Until they announced how the Finals would work, I figured the Finals would be a tourney open for people who received points at all throughout the year or something along those lines. I guess I was wrong. = Next year, they should make the Finals so that the top 16 in points by the end of the last stop get invited, and maybe just the top 8 (if not all the participants) get free travel and accomodations, but everyone places within the money (much like last year's World Tour finals) -- perhaps $1,000 as a way to show the WSVG's appreciation to the really good players that barely won food money throughout the stops (ie, Nomadic). That way, more players have more incentive to keep going to most or all of the WSVG's events. |
|
|
Dird |
Dec 2 2007 12:43PM |
| fuck nomadic theres barely any money as there is | |
 frag^m |
Dec 2 2007 1:26PM |
|
this is the world SERIES of videogames. players who are good in the long run (at least within this series) should attend the finals, and that can only be achieved by using a points system. else you might end up having inactive players attending your event (which stopped playing seriously in the meantime), or people playing the finals who only were good at e.g. the very first tournament and failed utterly against a stronger competition. or - like in this situation - a overall better placing player gets disadvantaged over a worse (compared to him, in the long run) player. but organizers should not forget to put effort in weighting the tournaments in a fair way and developing an appropriate points system. |
|
 GeminiRius |
Dec 2 2007 3:17PM |
|
its not news that WSVG is in this for the money and dont give a crap about who wins or who doesnt. one of the heavy weighter pointers is the miss wsvg tourny. what does that even has to do with in a world series of VIDEO GAMES ??????? about the point system. totally agree with you. but I dont think wsvg will care. |
|
 TerrorByte |
Dec 2 2007 5:15PM |
|
I agree with Carmac, even ignoring the ideas of who deserves, or doesn't deserve, to go to the finals. This system clearly creates quite an imbalance at later events if players that have previously qualified attend. |
|
|
COLDUNN |
Dec 3 2007 2:19AM |
|
#12 First off I don't work with WSVG or anything, but even past that I don't get how you can really be that lost. "-actually have decent prizes that will entice people to show up for ALL events?" What do you think they had a meeting and decided that lower prizes would make the event more popular??? "-make sure ALL players attend EACH event. Hard and not very economically sound...but its better then having your event look like it was run by 10 year olds." Are you serious? I mean how is that even possible, short of spending 15 million dollars to get the community on contract? Basically, you're demanding that they put more money into the event in all aspects, like that's something they can just press a magical red button to make happen. Even the tournaments that have been around for years would fail to do that, much less an organization that formed less than a year ago... I mean come on in this short amount of time they have managed to get ads all over in mainstream media and even got players airtime on MTV, yet you act like they're ruining the community. |
|
|
mefaipe| |
Dec 3 2007 5:31AM |
|
Yeah I agree with Carmac as well. The points system would be fairer than the current system. |
|
|
atdt |
Dec 3 2007 11:23AM |
|
hey now hey hey.. Jay has every right to be in the finals. Fox should have finished ahead of jay this time. he didn't. his loss. |
|
|
Slashered |
Dec 3 2007 11:31AM |
|
If we went by the points system, every single player who's qualified for finals would still be in, except one. Cooller. Who would be replaced by fox. And that's it, after tallying all the points up, which we did. |
|
|
Carmac |
Dec 3 2007 11:34AM |
|
But I suggested the winners of each (with no 'first in line' rule) and then points. Wouldn't that be better? |
|
|
|4H|Kev |
Dec 3 2007 11:46AM |
|
All I see, is 2gd was 6th and Fox was 7th in THAT specific event. I totally agree with this system, and just because rules are rules, there are no acceptions. I also think its not the best system, and a point system is more effective, but that isnt the case here. |
|
|
Walkaaq |
Dec 3 2007 1:36PM |
|
#29 I never said you worked for WSVG so don't put words in my mouth. Also, I never said it would be feasable it was just an idea....although I could throw out the point that the WCG flies ALL of its participants to the finals which is ten times as much money then the wsvg would have to put out...so nice try on that one. Contract....if you want to be pro you shouldn't be half ass about it. "oh know! A contract....now I don't want to play because I am to lazy to do something I want to do.." That mantality makes absolutly NO SENSE! If you fear contracts you must be a moron. No pro team will even consider you if you don't want to sign a contract. Anywase....before you come up with any further assinine comments saying that those simple (maybe not feasable in all cases) ideas are stupid...you should do some research. |
|
|
Alien |
Dec 3 2007 6:07PM |
|
this could all be solved with a new rankings system.. one that accounts for a players performance in each of the events they participate in. Basing a rankings system purely on raw numbers is a flawed attempt at showing consistency.. thus a ranking system in which every WSVG event offered up 'ranking points' that carried over until the final event to determine the top 8 or so players would work much better and fairly! carmac.. get me the top 12 finishers information from each of those WSVG events that you have listed and I will demonstrate how a proper rankings systems can fairly choose the top 8 participants. I will use the GPS Ranking system. |
|
|
COLDUNN |
Dec 4 2007 7:35AM |
|
WCG has been around for 6 years now and over time have built up enough money from sponsors like Microsoft and Samsung to do that. WSVG, on the other hand, is a brand new tournament and this year was their FIRST series. If it is such a simple idea to implement a brand new league and give out all of that money, why don't you get with GBT so they can start doing some better stuff and make the community a better place. I wasn't implying that contracts or your ideas are necessarily bad plans, just that I don't get why you seem to think WSVG has billions and billions of dollars laying around. If they had tons of money, of course they would be using more in that way, but for now they are splitting their funds between investing in the community (media airtime to promote eSports), running tournaments (they aren't free after all), and prize money. |
|
|
Missy |
Dec 4 2007 8:25AM |
|
Fox deserves to go... that's for sure, and Dird and #15 aren't making any sense :) |
|
|
Walkaaq |
Dec 4 2007 11:59AM |
|
WCG flew people in from year one i believe ( I could be wrong but I think I am right) Also, I do take an active role in my particular part in the gaming scene so don't assume that I am all talk and no action (yes I understand that you didn't say i was all talk and no action, I am just clearing that up early on "D ) Also, GBT is doing a fine job with the ladders/tournies/leagues it runs although I was promised a css ladder a month ago and it still isnt up. = Anyhow...thats all I guess...other then it doesn't take billions of dollars...and the WSVG is just helping run other events with their own 'penache' so to speak to add to the flavour of the previously established events. So there is more money at the tournaments then just the WSVGs. NOTE: I am not trying to rag on a leader in the gaming scene, I am just clearly stating places where they incadentaly*SP*? messed up. |
|
|
frag` |
Dec 4 2007 12:08PM |
|
take a look at what i designed for ingame in 2004 for their wc3 series. www.incup.de (16 player season finals = only cup winners + best players from the season ranking) in my opinion it is much better than the stuff cpl or wsvg came up with |
|
|
samolot |
Dec 9 2007 5:06AM |
|
carmac i think u have right but not at all it's good that team which take 1st or 2nd place on even one event will go on a WSVG finals, look at pentagram, they won in London but they don't have oportunity (i guess main problem was money) to go on other tournaments so they should not play in Dallas? |
|
|
DraZa |
Dec 9 2007 7:48AM |
| who got 5-8 at lanwar and dreamhack? | |
You must be logged in to add comments
