[deL]

Originally Posted by Xeen

What wild is trying to get at, and explain about the BW Proleague format, is that it's not bo1 - it's bo7 with 7 (6+ace) different players. Rather than averaging the skill of two individuals and comparing it via bo3, you're comparing the skill of the entire team through bo7s. Part of the skill of teamleagues is preparing lineups, practicing certain matchups, and exploiting the fact that each player can only contribute once.

A lot of the 'epic' of proleague is because of the fact each player only has one contributing game to the team, resulting in extremely high-tension situations.

I understood what he means, but still reject it. Bo3 is just as exciting everyone just has this idea in their head that because it's bo1 it's more exciting - turning a game around from 0-1 down against an opponent you are favoured against, or the game going 1-1 to a deciding match, etc. is just as exciting as watching good players get cheesed out every game.

I still think requiring 7 players is going to result in some walkovers which kills any excitement there was anyway.

Originally Posted by Xeen

I'm going to give a concise example:

MMA vs MC, GSTL game 7 betwen oGs and SlayerS. MC in a series at that time is heavily favored. Yet the game was incredibly exciting because it was so pivotal, and because MMA pulled out all the stops to clinch a win.

Spectators don't want to see the superior player get lots of chances to conservatively clean up. They want to see underdogs come out and try to pull something wild to upset their superior opponent, while the set is still not a disappointing league upset because it's bo7 team vs team.

Individual leagues and team leagues both give multiple games per set to fairly decide the better competitor. Similarly, like a single player might have many strategies to select for their games, a team has different players to send out. Same concept, larger scale - and Proleague has always run effectively on the system.

That's not to say the bo5 of bo3s doesn't work, but I'd definitely argue it lacks the same degree of spectator appeal.

Spectators only wanna see upsets? Really? I'd say a bigger pull is seeing the best of the best but OK. I know all-kill format etc can be exciting but we have events like the GSTL clone to fill this niche of team competition. These NationWars only come around once in a while and should be more epic than your standard clan comps, not just some cheap thrills made by making the format more conducive to cheesing.

Also like I said, you will probably find that Bo7 is actually going to make MORE one-sided games as the depth of weaker teams is stretched.

In the end it's the sponsor's call about how long they want their tourney to be streamed anyway.

[Xeen]

Originally Posted by deL

Spectators only wanna see upsets?

You missed part of my point, which is that bo1s create higher-tension situations and games, while in the context of a bo7 team match, don't render everything down to luck the way some might imagine. The players get one shot, but the team gets four, and this is about the depth of the entire team rather than the individual.

As I brought up, a lot of the depth of team matches is in lineup preparation, sniping, and creating asymetrical matchups. A lot of this is lost if you bo3 every set of players, because sniping or preparing builds becomes dramatically less important.

What I do agree with is that bo7 potentially means teams can't field enough players, but bo3'ing every matchup creates such a sheer number of potential games that there can be scheduling issues there as well. Don't say 'we'll just cast replays', because nobody ever wants to cast replays.

[deL]

Originally Posted by Xeen

You missed part of my point, which is that bo1s create higher-tension situations and games, while in the context of a bo7 team match, don't render everything down to luck the way some might imagine. The players get one shot, but the team gets four, and this is about the depth of the entire team rather than the individual.

As I brought up, a lot of the depth of team matches is in lineup preparation, sniping, and creating asymetrical matchups. A lot of this is lost if you bo3 every set of players, because sniping or preparing builds becomes dramatically less important.

What I do agree with is that bo7 potentially means teams can't field enough players, but bo3'ing every matchup creates such a sheer number of potential games that there can be scheduling issues there as well. Don't say 'we'll just cast replays', because nobody ever wants to cast replays.

I stil Bo3s still create the same tension, as there are still 'match point' scenarios where one player is up a game or they are 1-1.

I think you're overstating the lineup preparation and 'sniping'. Most of the players won't be well enough known and aside from where the players share teammates in the opposing nation's team only very general styles will be known or practiced for. It certainly comes in to play but there's a point where putting a lot of effort into it doesn't really reap any significant reward.

While preparing a build may become less important in Bo3, the maps and player choices as well as lineup are going to become more important. Even this is arguable as you still have to guess the lineup correctly out of a 7 possible maps so how much you can practice to snipe a specific player is in doubt. Also I don't know how you think having Bo3 will make asymmetrical matchups any harder lol.

I also like the team aspect of talking or coaching between matches and it really makes it feel like the team is working together. After losing game 1 getting in to a chat with the rest of the team and discussing with them what went wrong and the best choices for next map is a lot of fun and an important part of a lot of real-world sports. While this doesn't affect the viewers so much it is something I'd miss a lot as a participant - if the players and managers feel like they are part of a team that is going to reflect in the feel of tournament and games more than any format will.

Also I don't get why you are talking to me about scheduling issues, like I said you can get the last 2 players in the lineup to turn up an hour later than the first few players so there's a lot less waiting time if it ends up being an issue. The sponsor has put up a lot of money the players ought to act professionally and ensure they can play at the time agreed, if not for the cash then for the team.

The other extreme regarding the schedule could be a problem too. With 7 x Bo1 we could see the whole NW end in just over an hour which aside from being a lame spectacle is insufficient exposure for the sponsors (face it we have to consider this if we want our events to be taken seriously, and stop feeling like we earn sponsor's money without effort). Also it reduces flexibility as I remember last NW League we had players specifically request to be put up later in the match so they had time to get back from work or social events or whatever.