Now that S5 Worlds is over, it's time to think about bigger and better Worlds for the future

Ale non è male·Nov 2, 2015·2 votes·1,570 views

Premise S5 Worlds (and the entire road to Worlds) have been an event that confirmed the growth and success of LOL e-sports scene, but has also shown that the environment of League is changing Even though Korea keep dominating, the game is expanding in further regions, and overall the level is increasing in every region

It is time to think about a new formula for Worlds to reflect that

Expand Worlds 24 teams instead of the actual 16, to recognize the improvement of some regions, and to give more chances to the regions that are actually behind while prizing the best regions at the same time

3 KR, 3 EU, 3 CN, 3 NA, 3 LMS 1 BR, 1 TR, 1 GPL, 1 INT tournament (GPL/BR/TR), 2 IWCT tournament(LJL/OCE/LA/CIS) 1 Worlds winner region, 1 MSI winner (^), 1 Last chance tournament (KR/EU/CN/NA/LMS) (**),

INT tournament: #1 team from BR, TR, GPL compete each other to give to their region an extra spot to Worlds and to give themselves get a better seeding in the draw

^ if MSI winner is from the same region of World winners, than the spot goes to the 2nd best placed region at previous Worlds ** the #4 seed teams from the major regions that do not have yet 4 teams qualified enter the tournament

Evolving Format There is a discrepancy in the format of the various regions, so not everyone is actually used to play Best of series when playoffs come. So why, not train them before during Worlds?

1st Phase 8 Groups, 3 Teams each group, 2 Best-of-3 series vs each team in the group, Teams from same region can't be drawn together.

Point system : 1 point for each set won + 1 point for sweeping the series. Best 2 teams advance to next phase carrying the points earned vs the other team qualified (if 2 or more teams have the same amount of points, H2H results is the tiebreaker, then number of wins, if at the end teams are still even Bo1 tiebreaker)

Seeding Pot 1: #1 seed from KR, EU, CN, NA, LMS, best next team of top 3 regions at MSI (es. #2 KR, #2 CN #2 EU) (**)

Pot 2: #2 seed teams of major regions not in pot 1, INT tournament winner , #3 KR, EU, CN, NA, LMS

Pot 3: #4 seed team of Worlds winner region, #4 seed team of MSI winner region , Last chance tournament winner, 1 team from BR, GPL, TR, 2 teams from IWCT

** if a team from a non major or INT region places at top 3 at MSI, then the #3 team of the worst major region team placed at MSi drop in Pot 3. If an INT region team place at top 3 at MSI, the INT tournament winner is placed in Pot 1; then if INT tournament winner is from a different region than the one of the team that got the podium at MSI, the #1 team of the region that got the MSI result is placed in Pot 2 with the #3 team of the worst major region team placed at MSi dropping in Pot 3

2nd Phase

Draw to decide which of the previous groups to pair, 4 groups, 4 teams each groups, 2 Best-of-3 series vs the teams not met in the previous phase, Teams from same region can't play vs each other in their last Best-of-3 to avoid combines

Same point system of 1st Phase, the 2 teams with the higest amount of points overall including both phases advance to Knockout stage (Knockout stage being the same of the actual one)

I think this could be a pretty balanced formula to reflect the actual situation of LOL e-sports scene, and is flexible enough that could be easily adjusted in the future if in the next years balance between regions drastically change

Your Thoughts?

30 Comments

Emperor CynricNov 3, 20151 votes

No now that worlds is over its time to think about a bigger and better LoL. Meaning more content such as maps, permanent game modes etc. There is way too much focus on Esports that needs to be spent more on the game and less on worlds.

Ale non è maleNov 3, 20152 votes

{quoted}

No now that worlds is over its time to think about a bigger and better LoL. Meaning more content such as maps, permanent game modes etc. There is way too much focus on Esports that needs to be spent more on the game and less on worlds.

And how these things conflict, though? The Riot guys that ran the e-sports tournaments aren't the same that are designing champs, maps and game modes, so do one thing do not take anything from the other things

Emperor CynricNov 3, 20151 votes

Meaning that all riots resources such as $$$$ goes to esports instead of more important things

Ale non è maleNov 4, 20152 votes

How would these changes take on all $$$$ riot resources, though?

MyzNov 5, 20151 votes

{quoted}

No now that worlds is over its time to think about a bigger and better LoL. Meaning more content such as maps, permanent game modes etc. There is way too much focus on Esports that needs to be spent more on the game and less on worlds.

Are you new to MOBA ? It's been over 15 years that we've played on the same map, we don't need new maps, only new champions / items.

Gamemodes & maps are just casual thing you do once in a while to get a change of air with friends ... them not being permanent is the smallest of smallest worry for Riot or any real MOBA fan.

Emperor CynricNov 5, 20151 votes

[deleted]

MyzNov 5, 20151 votes

{quoted}

yeah cant wait for season 16, cant believe its been 15 years of LoL already. Permanent Maps and game modes are always a nice thing In a game.

You do know MOBA is the game genre, not league of legends ?

League of legends comes from DotA AllStars, a mod from warcraft. Instead of being so aggressive, do some research before replying nonsense.

Other games in the moba genre: DotA2, Heroes of the storm, heroes of newerth, Smite ...

prozak82Nov 4, 20151 votes

good god no we need less teams at worlds, not more, so we can get rid of the complete crap shoot that is the group stage.

Ale non è maleNov 5, 20153 votes

Group stage was actually good this season, if anything even better than playoffs as there were more unexpected situation throughout the group stage (barrng for Group C, which was a result of unfortunate drawing)

prozak82Nov 5, 20151 votes

group stages introduce too much luck into the format and you cant really compare teams from different groups cus each team only plays a small fraction of the other teams. I think it would be way better if each team got to play every other team at worlds.

Ale non è maleNov 5, 20151 votes

Your point is not irrational, but It would be literaly impossible with ANY format to do that with a decent amount of teams (like, 4/8 teams would be too few, and with more teams you can't do that). In no big competition that last 1 month every team meet each other in the competition, and teams have to play first their regional seasons so Worlds time can't be expanded so much Also, the luck is introduced mainly by the Bo1 format. In a best of format C9 wouldn't have come close to qualify in their own group, because they would have been dismantled after the first win in a series given their inability to pull out more than one strategy and few different champs

prozak82Nov 5, 20151 votes

no, with 10 teams all playing each other once you would need to play 45 games which is actually less than this years group stage played. and no, the luck is introduced with the grouping of teams. there is no luck in every team playing every other team because every team plays the exact same schedule. when you use groups a team might get placed into an easier group or with teams they match up better against.

Ale non è maleNov 5, 20151 votes

{quoted}

no, with 10 teams all playing each other once

But you shouldn't want teams to play each other ONCE. Bo1 is what introduced the most luck, because if the seeding is balanced then the best team advance to the knockout stage anyway, and that's what basically happened this year, but if in a Bo1 for any reason a game is screwed up, you can't get back If you want everyone to play everyone you should want teams to meet at least two times each other to mitigate luck factor...Single game as format is accepted for regular season/group, because you know you are going to play at least another time vs a team to revenge yourself if you have been unlucky, and then you got the best of them to meet each other in best of series in knockout stage

prozak82Nov 6, 20151 votes

what kind of luck are you talking about? if all the teams play the same schedule then no one team gets luckier than others matchup wise. if a team prepares better and picks better and plays better and wins the game im pretty sure that's called skill not luck. with best of ones you have to make sure you prepare well for the other team and execute well cus you only get one shot. its a whole other type of skill set that a team uses as opposed to playing a series, but I see nothing wrong with rewarding teams for both styles, that way you get a more complete team that wins worlds and not just a team thats good at adapting during a series.

Ale non è maleNov 6, 20151 votes

Best of one game are subject to lot of luck, because it can happen anything that can cause the loss of a superior team to an inferior one Take for example game 1 of ahq vs C9 in group stage. ahQ was winning and slowly but steadily building more and more advantage, when suddenly they stopped to make plays, and C9 in like 2-3 minutes turned the game around and from that point the game ended up super quickly in C9 favor also thanks to C9 strategy that was unexpected and led to their fast win In the second game and subsequently in third tiebreaker game, ahQ didn't commit the same mistake roflstomping C9 and proceeded to advance to knockout stage, being them clearly the superior team between the two In your format ahQ would have had no chance to revenge that game 1 oddity, and this wouldn't have been fair for them at all Also with Bo1, you clearly can't show if you can adapt to the other team, you have literaly no time to study the other team strategy if you have to play every few hours vs different opponents without even have chance to review their game, you just do your play and hope it works

Bo1 has his own merits as format, but also has its disadvantages. Again, if we think about C9 at this Worlds, the team that would have faced them first would have had an implicit schedule disadvantage vs the others that were facing them later, because the team that were scheduled to face them later would have had learned that C9 was running over and over the same strategy, and even with little time would have had time to study a counter strategy

Again, the team grouping does not introduce luck if seeding is done well and there is no extraordinary chains of event during the draw. The actual World format isn't bad at all, but the problem is clearly that being Worlds have that precise amount of teams end up with pot 3 having teams of too different level into it, which didn't cause many problems this season because in the end I think the teams that advanced to knockout stage were effectively the best 8 in the tournament, but could cause it in the future, and that's why I advanced the proposal, because I don't think it would be right to reduce the number of teams at Worlds since game is expanding You can not agree with my proposal, fo sure, but Bo1 format with a team playing once vs and aversary...well, it's a format that keeps all disadvantages of bo1 format, even amplified, for no real reason given that in LoL there is no such a physical problem in playing multiple times vs a team like what happens in some sport when there is no enough time to make a team rest and thus you are forced to go with Bo1 like football(soccer) or rugby or american football

prozak82Nov 6, 20151 votes

if you think playing a tiny fraction of teams twice seeds the teams out better than playing every team once then I don't know what to tell ya. it just sucks bringing all these teams from around the world together and then you get to see them only play 3 other teams. heck the most teams any team can play against is 6, which is still under half of the teams at worlds. the bracket stage sucked and was full of 3-0s because the group stage sucked for seeding out teams properly.

Ale non è maleNov 6, 20151 votes

How the knockout stage result have any correlation with the format of the Worlds though? Do you think that if there were CLG or H2K playing vs those teams rather than the one that got to knockout stage the result would have been any different? Nah, it is just that you are not answering to the points The point of Worlds is seeing teams from different regions battle each other, and the purpose is achieved with this format In FIFA world cup a team to get to the final can play at most is 7 on 32 teams which is even a lower percentage than actual World format, but reasonably no one brag about that As long as the seeding process is done correctly, you'll see the best team advance without the need to insert luck factors like single Bo1 games effectively are - and if you can't acknowledge why bo1 involve luck, it's your problem, not mine -

prozak82Nov 7, 20151 votes

[{quoted}](name=Ale non è male,realm=EUW,application-id=9hBQwnEU,discussion-id=rOwf4eq5,comment-id=0001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2015-11-06T23:15:07.338+0000)

How the knockout stage result have any correlation with the format of the Worlds though? Do you think that if there were CLG or H2K playing vs those teams rather than the one that got to knockout stage the result would have been any different? Nah, it is just that you are not answering to the points The point of Worlds is seeing teams from different regions battle each other, and the purpose is achieved with this format In FIFA world cup a team to get to the final can play at most is 7 on 32 teams which is even a lower percentage than actual World format, but reasonably no one brag about that As long as the seeding process is done correctly, you'll see the best team advance without the need to insert luck factors like single Bo1 games effectively are - and if you can't acknowledge why bo1 involve luck, it's your problem, not mine -

I don't understand why you think whoever wins best of ones is lucky, you make no sense. youre telling me if every team played every other team once then the luckiest team would have the most wins at the end? lol cus I can tell you that in groups a team may make it out of their group because they matchup well against the other teams in their group, but then they could completely suck against teams from other groups which is what we saw play out in the bracket stage.

Ale non è maleNov 7, 20151 votes

But do you honestly think CLG, C9, or H2k would have done anything in bracket stage? In single Bo1 there is more luck than in double Bo1 or a best of series, it is something undenibale... of course the better team will win most of the time, but the concern is that in the end on a still small amount of game one or 2 key oddity result between teams at the middle of the table (because best teams would end up at top, and worst at bottom, of course) could completely change standings In group stage Koo relatively sucked against their group opposition and then in knockout stage proceded to get till finals and be the only team to take a game away from SKT, so what?

It is not possible to have anyone fight anyone else in Bo1 a sufficient amount of times to revenge oddities (namely 2x Bo1) unless you reduce the number of teams at Worlds or expand Worlds duration, which are two things extremely unlikely to apply

prozak82Nov 7, 20151 votes

sigh im getting tired of arguing with you about your definition of luck. your system would not work anyway. you would have to play a massive amount of games, probably about twice as many, during your group stage as they played this year.

Ale non è maleNov 7, 20151 votes

You are really arguing with yourself only, not even bringing up a decent point for debate anymore Single Bo1 game format has more luck involved in it than any other format, that's not something up to debate That's not the definition of luck, that is simply the law of large numbers you are pretty much ignoring to keep arguing your point

prozak82Nov 7, 20151 votes

nope putting teams into dinky groups results in way more luck than having them all play each other and I already told you why. you even said so yourself that if every team played each other that the good teams would end up on top and the bad teams on the bottom. do you really think if you shuffled around the groups that you would get the same teams going to bracket stage every time?

Ale non è maleNov 7, 20151 votes

dinky groups? Lol If you shuffle around groups you are probably going to have the same teams advancing almost (I underline almost because, you know, anything can happen) all the times, because, you know, some teams supposedly good didn't just show up to their supposed strength in the tournament (mainly CLG, and the two chinese teams) If the seeding process is done correctly, unless major hicc-ups in the draw, the top teams are going to get out of groups. Heck, there was even major hicc-ups in draw as the supposedly weakest pot 1 team got pretty much the easiest group possible and they were eliminated anyway because they just weren't good enough...would have CLG advanced in any other group?

prozak82Nov 7, 20151 votes

see thats the uncertainty im talking about that is inherent in groups. maybe edg would have fared much better in a different group and ended up going deep into the tournament. or clg. who knows? but you get rid of that uncertainty when teams play the exact same teams as everyone else.

Ale non è maleNov 8, 20151 votes

{quoted}

see thats the uncertainty im talking about that is inherent in groups. **maybe edg would have fared much better in a different group and ended up going deep into the tournament. **or clg. who knows? but you get rid of that uncertainty when teams play the exact same teams as everyone else.

EDG could not face LGD from Pot 1, and so they had to face either SKT, FNC or CLG. EDG got trashed by both SKT and Fnatic, and CLG wasn't that good to start with theirselves Who knows? The problem is that we can even agree the formula is not perfect, but you are not bringing serious points anymore to the discussion, even disgaridng basics law of number when talking about luck involved in format, you are just stating "gtfo, I'm right because I said so"

prozak82Nov 8, 20151 votes

thats because you just ignore any points that I make - like your system being completely unfeasible because of the amount of games that would need to be played

Ale non è maleNov 8, 20151 votes

{quoted}

thats because you just ignore any points that I make

that's because you are seriously trying to argue something like that single Bo1 format does not involve more luck than any format when you play multiple times vs the same team

prozak82Nov 9, 20151 votes

now youre just making shit up. i never said best of 1s are less lucky than a series if the teams are playing the same schedule. im saying theres less luck involved in teams playing the same schedule with best of ones vs. dividing teams up into little groups and playing multiple games

Ale non è maleNov 9, 20151 votes

{quoted}

im saying theres less luck involved in teams playing the same schedule with best of ones vs. dividing teams up into little groups and playing multiple games

Which, again and for the last time, it is not true if teams play only 1 game against each other, and this has been explained to you why previously, and there is not enough time to make everyone play everyone else a 2nd game to avoid single game oddity