Two Pools 2 | Feedback and Ideas

[LidaKor]

If you have any feedback or ideas related to the event, we welcome your opinion over here.

 

[Rustyiesty]

I'd like to suggest that the unassigned 1.25% goes towards administration and mapmaking, unless anyone else has a better idea

 

[RogganWololo]

I'm not sure if this is feedback or a question, but posting it here anyway. While two pools 1 was an amazing event that produced great games and displayed some awesome maps, the biggest complaint about it was how long it took for the players to draft civs. I can see that this will no longer be an issue till the semifinals since the games are being cast as recs, but will still be an issue semifinal onwards. I am not sure how this can be overcome though, since the way the draft is structured makes it tricky to do it on aoe2cm. Maybe impose an external time-limit on players to pick a civ?

Also a bit disappointed to not see Glade being retained in the map pool. It was my favourite map from the two pools 1 map pool.

 

[LidaKor]

I'm not sure if this is feedback or a question, but posting it here anyway. While two pools 1 was an amazing event that produced great games and displayed some awesome maps, the biggest complaint about it was how long it took for the players to draft civs. I can see that this will no longer be an issue till the semifinals since the games are being cast as recs, but will still be an issue semifinal onwards. I am not sure how this can be overcome though, since the way the draft is structured makes it tricky to do it on aoe2cm. Maybe impose an external time-limit on players to pick a civ?

Also a bit disappointed to not see Glade being retained in the map pool. It was my favourite map from the two pools 1 map pool.

AoE2cm now has a feature specifcally designed for this, so drafts won't be that long. In fact, we will be using aoe2cm for the event
And since we are mostly casting recs, that won't be a major issue for viewers either

 

[Michaerbse]

I'm sorry but your response means you are not considering the problem from the organizer's perspective. By expanding this qualifier by 8 teams, you are actively hurting the other 24. This is an international event with timezones clashing and most of the players not being full time aoe2 pros and having other responsibilities (school, work, family...), claiming that scheduling doesn't require any work from the admins is straight up wrong.

I don't like the approach that you are taking here. Ra gave his opinion in a perfectly respectful way and accepted full "blame" for not reading/memorizing the rules. It is absolutely natural that players and organizers have different perspectives and priorities and therefore different opinions on things. Hence I don't think he deserves to be called out for ignoring other people's perspectives.

On the matter itself: Stating that the other 24 teams would be actively hurt simply sounds like a gross overstatement. Teams 9-24 are barely affected at all.
Obviously you are right that "you shouldn't take on extra work" is a bit of a naive view. Reality is that scheduling a match can require anything from no involvement at all to actively working with both teams to find a solution over multiple days.

When I proposed the 24 team waterfall instead of the original idea of 8 matches between 16 teams, I was working with the following constraints:
- all matches will be casted
- the entire qualifiers should take no more than 4 days of casting

These constraints are self-made. Obviously players and viewers don't care whether it is you, LidaKor or anyone else making the decision. And for players it may simply be less important that all matches are casted than for tournament hosts.

And besides that, if we did expand it to 32 teams, what would the team that's seeded 33 say? Let's expand it to 64? Then to 128? There are 32 signups but that's for the 24 free spots, you would see comments like "It's unfair, I would have signed up if it was 32 teams from the start and easily gotten into the event". And they would be in their right to say that.

That comparison makes no sense at all. Increasing the size from 24 to 32 is very minor additional effort compared to increasing the size from 32 to 64 implying (1) straight up more than twice as many matches, (2) one additional week required for qualifiers or the stress of fitting two rounds into one week and (3) most likely many matches that are not really competitive.
If there were 64 strong teams it may even be worth to extend it even more but that's a fully different story. Having said that, I personally believe that the decision to go for 24 teams makes sense right now. There are certainly arguments for both 24 or 32 teams but I think it's rather unlikely that #25 to #32 have a good chance to qualify for the main event.

I appreciate the feedback. Thing is if anyone writing feedback posts took a moment to consider both perspectives of the problem, they might have come up with actual, useful solutions, or ones that might be wrong but we would have something concrete to discuss and maybe come up with a better version of it. If you are genuinely interested in improving the quality of the future events, feedback thread is your place to go into as much detail as you can and I guarantee you, at least one of the admins will read it, respond to it and pass it on to the team. If you take your time to think up a solution to the problem you are seeing, we will take time to discuss it, evaluate it, see if it works.

Here you are doing the same as you are accusing Ra of - not considering the other perspective. Extending the tournament to 32 teams is absolutely something concrete to discuss and it is absolutely possible. It is also absolutely not obvious that this decision is worse (it could be, there is not just one correct answer here).

 

[Nerfox]

I don't like the approach that you are taking here. Ra gave his opinion in a perfectly respectful way and accepted full "blame" for not reading/memorizing the rules. It is absolutely natural that players and organizers have different perspectives and priorities and therefore different opinions on things. Hence I don't think he deserves to be called out for ignoring other people's perspectives.

I don't get why you are getting defensive here, this is not a "call out" but a very simple message - I'm of the opinion that tournament organizers should consider both perspectives and if players and/or viewers are interested in actively making this and future events better, so should they. It's not easy but that's a whole other topic.

On the matter itself: Stating that the other 24 teams would be actively hurt simply sounds like a gross overstatement. Teams 9-24 are barely affected at all.
Obviously you are right that "you shouldn't take on extra work" is a bit of a naive view. Reality is that scheduling a match can require anything from no involvement at all to actively working with both teams to find a solution over multiple days.

You didn't get what I meant. Teams 9-24 are affected because the admin's attention is spread thin across more teams. It's easier to miss stuff, it's easier for misnuderstandings to happen, for players to forget deadlines and admins to forget to remind them. You can take that example and apply it to everything else - resolving timezone conflicts, being the mediator, you name it...

These constraints are self-made. Obviously players and viewers don't care whether it is you, LidaKor or anyone else making the decision. And for players it may simply be less important that all matches are casted than for tournament hosts.

These are the constraints I was working with when designing the 24 player bracket. I can't speak about things I have no information on. Mind you the other option was to accommodate 16 teams.

That comparison makes no sense at all. Increasing the size from 24 to 32 is very minor additional effort compared to increasing the size from 32 to 64 implying (1) straight up more than twice as many matches, (2) one additional week required for qualifiers or the stress of fitting two rounds into one week and (3) most likely many matches that are not really competitive.
If there were 64 strong teams it may even be worth to extend it even more but that's a fully different story. Having said that, I personally believe that the decision to go for 24 teams makes sense right now. There are certainly arguments for both 24 or 32 teams but I think it's rather unlikely that #25 to #32 have a good chance to qualify for the main event.

Yet again you are taking me talking about a broad idea and applying it literally. My points are:
- if you can accommodate n teams, the n+1 one will always be in the most unfortunate position
- you can't be arguing for expanding a tournament based on the signups - they are that way in large due to the size of the tournament - for example people who knew they would already be out didn't sign up at all

Here you are doing the same as you are accusing Ra of - not considering the other perspective. Extending the tournament to 32 teams is absolutely something concrete to discuss and it is absolutely possible. It is also absolutely not obvious that this decision is worse (it could be, there is not just one correct answer here).

Then prove that it is possible, I'm more than happy to be proved wrong.

 

[LidaKor]

Okay, before this turns into a drama thread.

Increasing bracket size does increase administration costs. It may not seem like much, but the extra work handling recs, scheduling can be quite significant.
In terms of streaming the event, claiming you don't have to stream all: name a tournament host hosting a big event that would not want to stream the games of his tournament. Yes, I totally admit I want to be able to stream all. But I also want other casters to have a good casting experience. As a caster myself, I really hate when I have to choose between overlapping series. It is nicer for everybody that we stream one set a time.

Lastly, there were zero complaints during the sign-ups that "hey, I think there are more than 24 good teams that could qualify". But you have to recognize that during this week, the first round of qualifiers is being scheduled and played this week. Would it be fair to say "oh hey, we add 8 more teams just now", changing the entire brackets in the final second. Probably not.

 

[Memeluke]

Name a tournament host hosting a big event that would not want to stream the games of his tournament.

T90Official Kappa

 

[Ganji_]

Hey not sure exactly where to post this, but we played a practisegame on RF where our team had 4 extra golds and 2 extra stones while the enemy had 0. @LidaKor Let me know if you want the recorded game.

Screenshot

Captured with Lightshot

prnt.sc

 

[LidaKor]

Hey not sure exactly where to post this, but we played a practisegame on RF where our team had 4 extra golds and 2 extra stones while the enemy had 0. @LidaKor Let me know if you want the recorded game.

Screenshot

Captured with Lightshot

prnt.sc

Yes, please send the rec to Chrazini, mapping is his territory

 

[OLADUSHEK]

Ok, now seriously.

Group D. SalzZ won Gl B in R1 3:2, then lost to WWP in R2 2:3 and in decider match they lost to GL 1:3.
GL not even played vs WWP, when SalzZ almost won them. You all think it's actually fair?
Ok, 3:1 > 3:2, but what about GL already know SalzZ strategies? Is it fair?

What you think about my stupid suggestion?
If in GSL format in decider match two teams already face each other - give 1 point the team that already won. What you think?

 

[JFK]

I dont think your suggestion is stupid because I agree with your analysis and I think GSL is not perfect. Then again, there is no perfect system.
Even though it is not stupid, I still disagree with your suggestion. In any sports it can happen that two teams, who faced each other in the group stage, meet each other again in the KO stage. It doesnt sound right to give advantage to the team based on earlier results.
Being a top player also means to be able to give your best when it really matters. You often see top teams underperform when it does not really matter. A bit offtopic: Some Psychologists developed a theory explaining this phenomenon (see graphic)

 

[MuscleChamp]

Ok, now seriously.

Group D. SalzZ won Gl B in R1 3:2, then lost to WWP in R2 2:3 and in decider match they lost to GL 1:3.
GL not even played vs WWP, when SalzZ almost won them. You all think it's actually fair?
Ok, 3:1 > 3:2, but what about GL already know SalzZ strategies? Is it fair?

What you think about my stupid suggestion?
If in GSL format in decider match two teams already face each other - give 1 point the team that already won. What you think?

Why should GL have an advantage knowing the strats? Because they watched them play vs WWP? GL also had to play a set that Salzz could have watched.

 

[OLADUSHEK]

Why should GL have an advantage knowing the strats? Because they watched them play vs WWP? GL also had to play a set that Salzz could have watched.

Because they already played each other and SalzZ used strats vs them.

 

[MuscleChamp]

Yeah but so did GL?

 

[OLADUSHEK]

Yeah but so did GL?

And in first match SalzZ won. Anyway it's not fair.

 

[Giuseppe551]

It's not perfectly fair, and this is a well-known downside to this format. This article elaborates on the issue: https://terrancraft.com/2020/06/06/the-hidden-side-of-gsl-tournament-format/. However if it's good enough for the best RTS tournament of all time I think it's good enough for TP2.