MCXD Profile Blog Joined February 2012 Australia 2732 Posts Last Edited: 2013-03-31 02:00:26 #1



EDIT2: I've proposed another format different to the one in this OP, check it out here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18165679







So I don't know about you, reader, but I absolutely love team leagues in SC2. Seeing the strategy and storylines that go into the clan wars involving games that are normally seen as individual just strikes me as both exciting as a view and intellectually appealing. They just seem special, even compared to games that are played in teams normally, like DotA/LoL and a lot of competitive FPSes. Because of this, I've been doing some thinking about clan war formats, particularly less common ones, and wondering if there was a format that could bring together the best of both worlds and really celebrate team competition. Which two worlds do I mean? I mean the two most commonly used clan war formats in SC2 right now: the proleague format and the winners league format.



The strengths and weaknesses of the two have been well discussed. The Proleague format is a much better test of a team's true strength, rather than the ability of a couple of key players to carry. However it (arguably) lacks the sense of cohesion, continuity and storyline potential of the winners league format. Essentially, one is better for finding the most skilled team, while the other is better for a dramatic viewer experience. But is there really no way to get the best of both?



In fact, I extend the question more broadly to everyone who wants to contribute: Is there a better team league match format than the two we already have?



I think that there might be, but I want some opinions. The downside, firstly, is that it's much more complicated than the pure winners league or proleague formats. However, I feel that it strikes a good middle ground between the two. It's heavily inspired by a clan war format I saw used by the FGC, so credit goes to them for the idea.





In a broad sense, the idea is to split the team match into small 'rounds', each of which is like its own mini-proleague-format match. The first round has each team play the required number of players. At the end of that round, the players who won are still in the match, and the players who lost are eliminated. The remaining players then compete in second proleague-style round, and so on, until all of the initial players on a team are eliminated.



To illustrate this with an example, lets use the hypothetical match of MVP vs. StarTale Bo7. The two teams would be given a map list, formatted like so:



Opening Round

Match 1: GSL Akilon Flats

Match 2: GSL Daybreak

Match 3: KeSPA Neo Planet S

Match 4 :GSL Cloud Kingdom



Follow Up Rounds

Match 5: GSL Icarus

Match 6: GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SE

Match 7: GSL Whirlwind SE



Just like in Proleague, the two teams would blind pick players for the maps. However, they would only do so for the first 4 maps here. These first 4 matches would become the opening round. Suppose the teams picked the following players:



Sniper <GSL Akilon Flats> Curious

DongRaeGu <GSL Daybreak> Hack

Finale <KeSPA Neo Planet S> Life

KeeN <GSL Cloud Kingdom> Bomber

Sniper CuriousDongRaeGu HackFinale LifeKeeN Bomber

All four of these matches will be played out. Suppose that the results are:



Sniper <GSL Akilon Flats> Curious

DongRaeGu <GSL Daybreak> Hack

Finale <KeSPA Neo Planet S> Life

KeeN <GSL Cloud Kingdom> Bomber

Sniper HackFinale Bomber

The players who lost, Sniper, Hack, Finale, Bomber would be eliminated from the match. The winners, however, Curious, DongRaeGu, Life, KeeN, would then play in 'Round 2' of the match. Because there is 2 players for each team, that allows for two more matches. Therefore, the 5th and 6th map will be introduced:



Match 5: GSL Icarus

Match 6: GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SE



Each coach/manager then picks (again, blindly) out of their two surviving players, who gets to play on what map. Suppose these picks are made:



DongRaeGu <GSL Icarus> Curious

KeeN <GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SE> Life

DongRaeGu CuriousKeeN Life

These two matches are then played. Again, suppose these are the results:



DongRaeGu <GSL Icarus> Curious

KeeN <GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SE> Life

CuriousKeeN

At this point, Curious and KeeN would be eliminated. However, both teams still have one player left, thus they would have to go into Round 3 on the final map:



DongRaeGu <GSL Whirlwind SE> Life

DongRaeGu Life

The winner of this match then takes it home for their team, 4-3!



This about sums up the idea of the format, but the devil is in the details, so:



Q. What if, say, StarTale, won all 4 of the matches in Round 1?

A. Then StarTale wins the match 4-0, because all of MVPs initial players have been eliminated!



Q. What if, say, both DongRaeGu and KeeN won their matches in Round 2?

A. Then MVP wins the match 4-2, because all of StarTale's initial players have been eliminated, while two of MVP's (DRG and Keen) remain.



Q. What happens if the result of Round 1 is 3-1 in favor of one team?

A. Ah, well, in that case it's all on the remaining player to eliminated the remaining three of the opposing team. An all-kill, essentially. Suppose the results of the first round was this, instead:



Sniper <GSL Akilon Flats> Curious

DongRaeGu <GSL Daybreak> Hack

Finale <KeSPA Neo Planet S> Life

KeeN <GSL Cloud Kingdom> Bomber

Sniper HackFinale KeeN

In this case, DongRaeGu is the only player remaining on MVP. He will then have to face Curious, Life and Bomber consecutively on the remaining three maps, to see if he can eliminate them all and win it for his team 4-3. For example:



DongRaeGu <GSL Icarus> Curious

DongRaeGu <GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SE> Bomber

DongRaeGu <GSL Whirlwind SE> Life

DongRaeGu CuriousDongRaeGu BomberDongRaeGu Life

If DRG lost immediately to Curious, StarTale would win 4-1.

If DRG beat Curious but lost to Bomber, StarTale would win 4-2.

If DRG beat Curious and Bomber, but lost to Life, StarTale would win 4-3.

If DRG beats all three of them, he will have scored an all-kill (as he defeated Hack in Round 1) and MVP wins 4-3.



This format is usable for as something as small as a Bo3, and as large as a Bo9, with relative ease. To compare:



2 initial players (Bo3):

Each team would blindly select two players to play on two maps (or starting maps, if the individual games aren't bo1). If one team takes both of these games, they win 2-0. If the score is 1-1 however, the winning players playoff in an ace match. The winning team there takes it 2-1.



3 initial players (Bo5):

The opening round will have three games, and thus always end in either a 3-0 score (in which case, that team wins) or a 2-1 score, where the last remaining player on the losing team will have to defeat the two surviving players of the winning team in succession. This exact format was used at SoCal Regionals a few weeks ago for an East Coast vs. West Coast showmatch in SF4:AE.



5 initial players (Bo9):

In this case, Round 1 will always end in a 5-0, 4-1 or 3-2 score. If the score is 5-0, the match is finished. If the score is 4-1 on the other hand, it is up to the last surviving player to try to defeat all four of the opposing team's surviving players. As this task is quite momentous, it would likely turn into "get as many points as you can" if this format is being used as part of some sort of team league round robin, where map score matters. I doubt they would be expecting to pull off the all-kill.



+ Show Spoiler ['See also...'] + On February 17 2013 11:25 MCXD wrote:

Show nested quote +

On February 17 2013 11:12 TommyP wrote:

Very interesting dude. The only thing I wouldn't like about this is that we would see a maximum of four players from each team and what I really like about team leagues is seeing many faces I don't see often but still, this would be awesome.



You could bump it up to Bo9 to have 5 players per team per match. It just makes it a little bit more complicated if the result of the first round is 3-2.



A hypothetical Bo9 between Prime and LG-IM, say:



Opening Maps:

1 - GSL Grand Lagoon

2 - GSL Whirlwind

3 - GSL Entombed Valley

4 - ESV Muspelheim

5 - GSL Ohana



Followup Maps:

6 - GSL Antiga Shipyard

7 - GSL Abyssal City

8 - GSL Cloud Kingdom

9 - GSL Daybreak



Results:



Maru <GSL Grand Lagoon> YongHwa

MarineKing <GSL Whirlwind> LosirA

ByuN <GSL Entombed Valley> NesTea

Classic <ESV Muspelheim> Seed

Creator <GSL Ohana> YoDa



Creator <GSL Antiga Shipyard> Seed

Maru <GSL Abyssal City> LosirA

(NesTea is spare)



Creator <GSL Cloud Kingdom> NesTea

(LosirA is spare)



Creator <GSL Daybreak> LosirA YongHwaMarineKing ByuN Classic YoDa SeedMaru NesTeaCreator



LG-IM wins 5-4, all nine games having been played.



It would be not really any different to the fact you only use 4-5 players as is in all-kill, anyway. But I see what you mean; it would still be slightly less variety than SPL, but all players will get to play, so I still see it as an improvement over normal all-kill at least =P



If there is a way to encourage player variety though..? You could bump it up to Bo9 to have 5 players per team per match. It just makes it a little bit more complicated if the result of the first round is 3-2.A hypothetical Bo9 between Prime and LG-IM, say:Opening Maps:1 - GSL Grand Lagoon2 - GSL Whirlwind3 - GSL Entombed Valley4 - ESV Muspelheim5 - GSL OhanaFollowup Maps:6 - GSL Antiga Shipyard7 - GSL Abyssal City8 - GSL Cloud Kingdom9 - GSL DaybreakResults:LG-IM wins 5-4, all nine games having been played.It would be not really any different to the fact you only use 4-5 players as is in all-kill, anyway. But I see what you mean; it would still be slightly less variety than SPL, but all players will get to play, so I still see it as an improvement over normal all-kill at least =PIf there is a way to encourage player variety though..?





Now, why do I like this format? Well, for a start, I feel it combines the best points of both winners league and proleague formats. You'll never have a lack of player variety, because both teams are absolutely required to use a certain number of players, and all of those players will play at least one game. You won't ever have to be disappointed that MKP didn't get to play because Creator got the all-kill as the opening man, for example.



Not only that, but it keeps the sense of drama and 'heroism' that you get from the all-kill format, because players who continue to win matches won't be eliminated, keeping them out there for their team, but without stealing all of the spotlight (which often happens with 5-0s and 5-1s in the GSTL).



Lastly, I feel it creates a much fairer environment in which to use map score as a measure of a team's performance...



The problem I have with the SPL is that it stops as soon as four matches are won. It doesn't matter if the players who's matches are un-played prepared extensively... it goes completely wasted, because their partners up front didn't pull their weight. Not only is that unfair to the late players, but it also creates a weird situation that I don't like. Suppose for example that you knew in advance (even though that's impossible, but just imagine we did) that the first 4 games in an SPL match were going to be won by Team A, and the last 2 by Team B. In the current format, what the viewer/teams would get is a 4-0 win by Team A. And yet, if the same matches had been played in a slightly different order, we would have gotten a 4-2 win for Team A. Just because the maps were arbitrarily arranged in some particular fashion, you can dramatically change the results of a match, because some games are unplayed. For that reason, I feel that any mapscore in SPL is, in part, untrustworthy and not representative of the potential team's skill in that match.



All-kill, obviously has the problem too, where you actually get actively rewarded for having top heavy teams, even in map-score. Suppose again that we knew that a particular player was going to score an all-kill. Depending on whether they were deployed first or last, the score can be 5-0, which implies a complete thrashing, or 5-4, which implies a very close game, when in actuality it was just one player completely whomping the other team. Worse still, if a particular team has many good players, but nobody particularly strong, it's typical for them to have players get a win or two then be eliminated, often resulting in scores like 5-3 and 5-4. Think about that... uniformly strong teams often get 5-3, 5-4, and top heavy teams (which abuse strong players early on) get 5-0, 5-1. Which team is really more deserving here? Do the scores really reflect that fact? No, not at all.



Using the format above, you can punish teams for being top-heavy, without removing their viability as a 'team design', and without stripping the match of its strong storyline/heroism potential. Because using the format above, no matter what, a true all-kill where one player carries the team, will always end in a 3-2, 4-3 or 5-4. Because of that, it means that if one player plays exceptionally well and the others flop, the score will accurately reflect that in a close score. Also, because every player absolutely plays at least one game no matter what, the map order of the opening round doesn't matter, and preparation is never completely wasted. It's fantastic, in my opinion.



So, how does everyone feel about the potential of this format? And, can anyone think of any different or even better formats for team league? Is it really worth discussing at all? EDIT1: People tell me this format is referred to as Waseda-style. Just so you all know.So I don't know about you, reader, butabsolutely love team leagues in SC2. Seeing the strategy and storylines that go into the clan wars involving games that are normally seen as individual just strikes me as both exciting as a view and intellectually appealing. They just seem special, even compared to games that are played in teams normally, like DotA/LoL and a lot of competitive FPSes. Because of this, I've been doing some thinking about clan war formats, particularly less common ones, and wondering if there was a format that could bring together the best of both worlds and really celebrate team competition. Which two worlds do I mean? I mean the two most commonly used clan war formats in SC2 right now: the proleague format and the winners league format.The strengths and weaknesses of the two have been well discussed. The Proleague format is a much better test of a team's true strength, rather than the ability of a couple of key players to carry. However it (arguably) lacks the sense of cohesion, continuity and storyline potential of the winners league format. Essentially, one is better for finding the most skilled team, while the other is better for a dramatic viewer experience. But is there really no way to get the best of both?In fact, I extend the question more broadly to everyone who wants to contribute:I think that therebe, but I want some opinions. The downside, firstly, is that it's much more complicated than the pure winners league or proleague formats. However, I feel that it strikes a good middle ground between the two. It's heavily inspired by a clan war format I saw used by the FGC, so credit goes to them for the idea.In a broad sense, the idea is to split the team match into small 'rounds', each of which is like its own mini-proleague-format match. The first round has each team play the required number of players. At the end of that round, the players who won are still in the match, and the players who lost are eliminated. The remaining players then compete in second proleague-style round, and so on, until all of the initial players on a team are eliminated.To illustrate this with an example, lets use the hypothetical match of MVP vs. StarTale Bo7. The two teams would be given a map list, formatted like so:Opening RoundMatch 1: GSL Akilon FlatsMatch 2: GSL DaybreakMatch 3: KeSPA Neo Planet SMatch 4 :GSL Cloud KingdomFollow Up RoundsMatch 5: GSL IcarusMatch 6: GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SEMatch 7: GSL Whirlwind SEJust like in Proleague, the two teams would blind pick players for the maps. However, they would only do so for the first 4 maps here. These first 4 matches would become the opening round. Suppose the teams picked the following players:All four of these matches will be played out. Suppose that the results are:The players who lost, Sniper, Hack, Finale, Bomber would be eliminated from the match. The winners, however, Curious, DongRaeGu, Life, KeeN, would then play in 'Round 2' of the match. Because there is 2 players for each team, that allows for two more matches. Therefore, the 5th and 6th map will be introduced:Match 5: GSL IcarusMatch 6: GSL Bel'Shir Vestige SEEach coach/manager then picks (again, blindly) out of their two surviving players, who gets to play on what map. Suppose these picks are made:These two matches are then played. Again, suppose these are the results:At this point, Curious and KeeN would be eliminated. However, both teams still have one player left, thus they would have to go into Round 3 on the final map:The winner of this match then takes it home for their team, 4-3!This about sums up the idea of the format, but the devil is in the details, so:A. Then StarTale wins the match 4-0, because all of MVPs initial players have been eliminated!A. Then MVP wins the match 4-2, because all of StarTale's initial players have been eliminated, while two of MVP's (DRG and Keen) remain.A. Ah, well, in that case it's all on the remaining player to eliminated the remaining three of the opposing team. An all-kill, essentially. Suppose the results of the first round was this, instead:In this case, DongRaeGu is the only player remaining on MVP. He will then have to face Curious, Life and Bomber consecutively on the remaining three maps, to see if he can eliminate them all and win it for his team 4-3. For example:If DRG lost immediately to Curious, StarTale would win 4-1.If DRG beat Curious but lost to Bomber, StarTale would win 4-2.If DRG beat Curious and Bomber, but lost to Life, StarTale would win 4-3.If DRG beats all three of them, he will have scored an all-kill (as he defeated Hack in Round 1) and MVP wins 4-3.This format is usable for as something as small as a Bo3, and as large as a Bo9, with relative ease. To compare:Each team would blindly select two players to play on two maps (or starting maps, if the individual games aren't bo1). If one team takes both of these games, they win 2-0. If the score is 1-1 however, the winning players playoff in an ace match. The winning team there takes it 2-1.The opening round will have three games, and thus always end in either a 3-0 score (in which case, that team wins) or a 2-1 score, where the last remaining player on the losing team will have to defeat the two surviving players of the winning team in succession. This exact format was used at SoCal Regionals a few weeks ago for an East Coast vs. West Coast showmatch in SF4:AE.In this case, Round 1 will always end in a 5-0, 4-1 or 3-2 score. If the score is 5-0, the match is finished. If the score is 4-1 on the other hand, it is up to the last surviving player to try to defeat all four of the opposing team's surviving players. + Show Spoiler ['Note'] + Now,Well, for a start, I feel it combines the best points of both winners league and proleague formats. You'll never have a lack of player variety, because both teams are absolutely required to use a certain number of players, and all of those players will play at least one game. You won't ever have to be disappointed that MKP didn't get to play because Creator got the all-kill as the opening man, for example.Not only that, but it keeps the sense of drama and 'heroism' that you get from the all-kill format, because players who continue to win matches won't be eliminated, keeping them out there for their team, but without stealing all of the spotlight (which often happens with 5-0s and 5-1s in the GSTL).Lastly, I feel it creates a much fairer environment in which to use map score as a measure of a team's performance...The problem I have with the SPL is that it stops as soon as four matches are won. It doesn't matter if the players who's matches are un-played prepared extensively... it goes completely wasted, because their partners up front didn't pull their weight. Not only is that unfair to the late players, but it also creates a weird situation that I don't like. Suppose for example that you knew in advance (even though that's impossible, but just imagine we did) that the first 4 games in an SPL match were going to be won by Team A, and the last 2 by Team B. In the current format, what the viewer/teams would get is a 4-0 win by Team A. And yet, if the same matches had been played in a slightly different order, we would have gotten a 4-2 win for Team A. Just because the maps were arbitrarily arranged in some particular fashion, you can dramatically change the results of a match, because some games are unplayed. For that reason, I feel that any mapscore in SPL is, in part, untrustworthy and not representative of the potential team's skill in that match.All-kill, obviously has the problem too, where you actually get actively rewarded for having top heavy teams, even in map-score. Suppose again that we knew that a particular player was going to score an all-kill. Depending on whether they were deployed first or last, the score can be 5-0, which implies a complete thrashing, or 5-4, which implies a very close game, when in actuality it was just one player completely whomping the other team. Worse still, if a particular team has many good players, but nobody particularly strong, it's typical for them to have players get a win or two then be eliminated, often resulting in scores like 5-3 and 5-4. Think about that... uniformly strong teams often get 5-3, 5-4, and top heavy teams (which abuse strong players early on) get 5-0, 5-1. Which team is really more deserving here? Do the scores really reflect that fact? No, notUsing the format above, you can punish teams for being top-heavy, without removing their viability as a 'team design', and without stripping the match of its strong storyline/heroism potential. Because using the format above, no matter what, a true all-kill where one player carries the team, willend in a 3-2, 4-3 or 5-4. Because of that, it means that if one player plays exceptionally well and the others flop, the score will accurately reflect that in a close score. Also, because every player absolutely plays at least one game no matter what, the map order of the opening round doesn't matter, and preparation is never completely wasted. It's fantastic, in my opinion.So, how does everyone feel about the potential of this format? And, can anyone think of any different or even better formats for team league? Is it really worth discussing at all?