I totally agree the tournament was excellent and thereby thank the organizers for their work and the players for their performance. You've all produced a lot of entertainment which was definitely reflected in viewing figures. I loved the spirited commentary from Memb and how well it worked with his #experts.
I also totally loved the webcams, it certainly added a new dimension to watching the games.
I don't really understand complaining about the seeding, tho? It seemed to have worked quite well. The only problem you may point is that the seeding was rather subjective, but then it's difficult to make it fully objective when we don't have an objective official ranking list for the game. One way of making it more impartial is to seed only the top half of the players and allocate the other half randomly. This may produce "clusters" of similarly rated players even in first rounds. I am not judging whether this is good or bad at this point, just putting on some ideas to discuss.
One thing I would like to see different is civ pick rules. The limitations you've imposed were a good starting point to see more civs played, but still we had a few civs which weren't present even once in whole tournament, while some others were there in almost every match. The top players feel too safe with strong picks and I think it'd be fun to see them out of their comfort zone, how do they fare with Goths, Vietnamese, Italians on land etc. How to achieve that, obviously that's up for debate. You could reset the civ pool only for the grand final so they have to use more different civs before. You could make a "random" pick override all the limitations so that they may gamble a bit (though that's a radical idea, I admit).
Can't wait to see what you guys come up with next time. Thanks and good luck.
how about having fixed civ pools of 5 civs each (that contains mixed "op" and "weak" civs )at the start of the tournament. and players choose 3 civ pools that they would be using in the first 3 round . so a total of 15 civs for 3 bo5 rounds.
and then before each round they pick 5 civs from the 15 civ pool . (and civ can't be used twice during the 3 rounds )
this way players will be forced to use all the civs and no civ would be left unused (if the civ pools are balanced enough). and it would add another level of planning before the tournament calculating the benefits and advantages of each civ pool. and less use of all the op civs all the time.
Ooo.. I like the random civ pick idea. I know any time there is any mention of increasing randomness in competitive tournament its loathed upon but regardless I like that it could add some excitement in round 1 (at most till round 2).
I'd like to expand upon the idea.
- Players should have some flexibility on when they can choose random pick. Random Pick must be used on match point (for winning player) or before match point. Last game if its a tie.
- Player using random pick gets 1 extra RE (within 2 min), other player cannot RE. Admin RE => Player using random pick can keep same civ or randomize again.
- Player picking random civ needs to let the other player know in chat whenever they use random civ (unless its obvious) to prevent abuse and cannot change their mind.
This would result in the same problems we had already: Uneven available civs in round 3.
If you said the civ pools of five have to be used as a whole in each round it could be fair, you would need pretty balanced pools tough. Another possible problem could be pretty onesided matches if one chooses the top civ of his pool and the other one a bottom tier civ.
If you wanted to see the weaker civs, A possible solution would be to have a pool of only weak civs, and for one match both player have to take one out of this pool
Most series were great.
Nice prizes. Good scheduling.
The draft system for semi-final was good. 2 bans each before picking civs adds something. You can ban archer / trush / cav civs depending on what you're trying / your playstyle, it adds more strategy imo
No loser bracket. Even though I wanted to watch more series, the element of a proper knockout high stakes series makes it more exciting and the tournament doesn't drag on too long.
The webcam idea for semi finals+ is a smart initiative which allows the person organising the event i.e Memb to gain something other casters don't have, thus probably giving the organiser more viewers which is only right.
The not so good:
The map could have been better. Yes there were great games but some maps were quite unfair in many instances. Also, a significant number of maps seemed to have bugged res, and most of the time it didn't result in admin RE.
Paying out from 17-32. Initially I thought this was a great idea but in the end, several top players missed out on the 32 cut. So maybe only giving incentive to those that actually have a hope of making it into top 16 would be better as ELO can be easily manipulated. Perhaps changing the method of picking the top 32 could be altered, as ELO isn't the best indicator.
Quality tournament overall though, looking forward to KOTD3 !
What is with all the people complaining about the map? Compare it to standard arabia please. That has as many unfair maps as this KOTD version had. Just look through e.g. KOTD1. Arabia has always had possibly very unfair maps, nothing changed there.
I agree. How often have we seen ridiculous maps on standard Arabia, one player having 0 woodlines and all res forward and the other a cozy easy wall map. If anything the KOTD2 map made it fairer by removing the cliffs. Some people here seem like Arabia is the fairest map ever - it never was and will be.