As the qualifiers for the next major are completed already we face a recurring question of the premier tournaments in the Dota 2 landscape.
What actually determines how many qualifier slots each region receives? With the formula for the DPC season being 3 for NA/EU/CN and 2 for the remaining regions there is as usual a lively debate about it. Classical examples are as follows (and may or may not have been inspired by our favorite subreddit):
“NA clearly does not deserve a third spot!” “Why does THAT region get more than ours?” “Just remove that trashcan region LUL”
While some of these concerns are valid, many of the complaints do not keep the whole picture in mind. The central issue is the utter arbitrariness of the current system. Taking away a slot from one region and awarding it to another would actually just exchange one arbitrary decision for another.
So what would be the solution I have in mind? Is there actually a process by which we would not only eliminate arbitrariness (regardless in which direction) but also maintain the peak of competitiveness a Major should encompass?
The model I have in mind involves more or less a complete overhaul of the allocation so please bear with me as I go through the details. As a first step I would suggest a flat 2 slots per region. Cutting the third spots EU, NA and CN currently have. Obviously some more radical-inclined persons would also like to see a reduction of the SA region’s slots due to it’s (perceived) weakness, but that is one step too far in my opinion.
Just as the SEA region has been slowly built up over the years of Dota history I believe we can promote a similar kind of growth in South America by keeping a slight and temporal overrepresentation of the region until it can compete with the others. It not only includes a large market from the economical standpoint but it also gives fans of the game storylines to cheer for and makes sure that the Dota world does not exclude a significant amount of its player base hailing from South America. By bringing every region’s slots to the same level we also remove the issue of arbitrariness I mentioned above.
So what happens to the 3 slots that we can “distribute” now? Before I go into details on them I would also like to introduce an idea for a rework of the current qualifiers for Majors and Minors. As it stands now the qualifiers for the Minor and the Major are strictly separated and doing well in the Major qualifiers but just missing out offers no tangible reward for the qualification to the Minor.
My suggestion would change the current formula. Instead of the current division between the two, I would like to see the third place from each regional Major qualifier to get invited into the Minor, which rewards you for making it far in the Major qualifier and also makes sense in the larger picture since the Minor is more or less a last chance Wild Card tournament for the Major, reminiscent of the old Wild Card Matches from past TIs (TI2 throughout TI6).
While it does make it harder for teams to break into the Minors from open qualifiers as only one slot remains for teams who did not make it to the Major qualifiers I think this step will also avoid situations like last Minor when Na`Vi was turning heads at MegaFon but not making it to the Minor for a shot at Chongqing. Having established rules for the Minor qualification process also helps in reducing the arbitrariness of tournament organizers being able to choose how to allocate slots to it. If you want to combat the slightly higher restrictiveness of the Minor it can easily be counteracted by expanding the tournaments to 12 teams with 2 open qualifiers for each region.
So now that we have established how the 8 Minor slots will be filled (4 third place finishers from each region and 4 to 8 open qualifiers) it is time to distribute the 3 open Major slots. My suggestion is to give out these slots for the teams placing inside the top 4 of the Minor. The thought-process behind that is actually really simple. On the one hand we aim for a “fair” distribution of slots but on the other we also want the “strongest” region at a given time to send the most teams to a Major. Having the top 4 of the reworked Minor qualify for the Major fulfills both of our aims at the same time. With 2 (or 3) teams from each region competing there is no regional bias present and limiting the slots to the top 4 also ensures the competitiveness of the attending teams. If one region is that much stronger than others, surely they can prove it by monopolising the the extra slots at a Minor by beating the competition.
There is also another advantage to having 4 slots awarded to the best teams at the Minor. Seeding for the groups at the Major also frequently suffers from the same feeling of arbitrariness that plagues the qualifier slots. Who or what determines the round 1 matchups for the ever important GSL group stage that has become the standard? With my proposed system in place it becomes very easy and clear-cut. The winners of each regional qualifier draw from the pool of teams coming in from the Minor and the runner-ups of each region face each other in the opening match of the Major. A elegant solution that not only rewards the stronger teams by giving them a favored matchup but also establishes rules and fairness based on performance.
Of course I realize that the amount of rules and stipulations I envisage to solve the qualifier slot problem are highly contradictory to Valve’s hands-off approach. Nevertheless I think it is important in order to ensure the feeling of “fairness” in the DPC especially in regards of quelling talk of “oh they just abused a weak-ass region to get there”. Dota 2 has grown to a size in which establishing rules, systems and regulations have their merit and would not diminish the inherent competitiveness of the game at all. For tournaments with as much on the line as Majors we should also have fixed rules by which the organisers have to abide for competitive integrity of Dota 2 in its entirety. Since the inaugural season of the DPC we have already underwent several changes in formats and rules so I hope that Valve can take this next step for the esport we all love and cherish.
Let me hear your thoughts and ideas on this matter in the comments.
The problem in designing a system is that the two goals of "rewarding the best teams" and "strengthening weak regions" are practically incompatible if not fundamentally contradictory.
I'd like there to be a system in place that would be more transparent, but as a practical matter I'm not sure there's much wrong with the results of the current approach.
If I designed the system, I think I'd want a third tier of sponsored/organized competition, let's say "regionals", that would be (at least mostly) region-locked. For timing, that would probably mean at least one fewer major, but I've never tried to work out the logistics.
I do recognize the difficulty of trying to fulfill two goals as far apart as "rewarding the best teams" and "strengthening weak regions". But with the proposed system in place I'd say it would be a working balance between the two.
Transparency is most certainly the biggest issue of the current approach and also the reason why I really want Valve to just establish a binding guideline for the organisers to follow. About the current results: It is really hard to say in my opinion since the tier 2 teams of each region don't actually get to face each other much so it is difficult to really assess their strength. Which is why I would prefer them directly facing off in the Minor for more than just 1 spot.
Just as an example we can look at the last Major where the supposedly stronger regions of NA/EU/CN each had a team placing rock bottom. Would runner-ups from other regions made it further? Obviously we can't 100% judge that but with more slots in competition between regions instead of locked in regional qualifiers we would have a better way of knowing.
I'm unsure whether another tier below Minors would work that well to be honest. I believe some regions lack the depth to meaningfully fill up a decent-sized tournament for that
Interesting piece. I think Valve certainly deserves criticism of their major/minor qualifier system. Your suggestions are likely too radical for them, but I think your suggestion that change is required is undeniable.
I like your suggested changes. If its too radical for Valve, they can take it step by step in that direction. Either way, some form of change would be rewarding. However, I personally think they might not do anything for this current DPC and adjust for next year
I am not into this system. I like to watch good dota, and would not like to see more SA but less. Spots should be reward after a Seeding system, there a points already so just use does and make them regional in edition to team ranking. Give a buck load for points for TI placement. Then Divided spots after points earned with a maximum of 4 and minimum of 1 team per region. So if Europe have over half the points we get to see more good team from that region instead of some save the world project.
The Major Minor system will always have flaws. Why not go in to League system? For example we can go 3-4 leagues Americas, Europe + CIS, China + SEA. Then Depending of how many top teams there are in that reagion go for 8-16 teams in a league. Online play every week. For example if a league has 8 teams they can meat eachother 4 times in a Bo2, (3 pts win, 1 pt tie), thats 28 rounds Also thats Four Bo2s to stream easily done in 1 day.. If there are 16 teams - they can meat each other 2 times ( 30 rounds ) and so on, 8 matches streamed in 2 days etc.... Occasionaly like every 3-4 months top teams from each reagion will meet in a offline tournament. End of the year top teams go to TI, bottom teams drop out of the league. Newly formed teams fight eachother for the slots in the next season league and so on. This way players will have more time to spend in their homes, and thats good for them. Everybody complaned about last years non stop traveling situation.
Ofcourse if it it is too laggy to play online SEA vs China for example or if there are too many teams, regions can remain as they are, With maybe 8-12 teams in each, this way top two in each league go directly to TI, others play qualifiers for the remaining slots. Why not make TI with 24 teams, ( there are a lot of talanted teams these days) so there will be 12 remaining slots, and this way if a region is too good, they can win as much slots as they deserve. Online play will also give a chance to any random team to play from their homes and have a chance to participate in the league, no extra expenses. Also that should save enough money so Valve can host the Final Qualifier for the remaining sltots offline. And most importantly every week we will have a chance to watch out favourite teams play a game. Good for the fans too.
Thats just an idea, people that are actually proffesionally involved in the sport, can adjust the numbers so wthey fit the needs of teams / players / regions best.
On February 08 2019 22:28 NInoff wrote: The Major Minor system will always have flaws. Why not go in to League system? For example we can go 3-4 leagues Americas, Europe + CIS, China + SEA. Then Depending of how many top teams there are in that reagion go for 8-16 teams in a league. Online play every week. For example if a league has 8 teams they can meat eachother 4 times in a Bo2, (3 pts win, 1 pt tie), thats 28 rounds Also thats Four Bo2s to stream easily done in 1 day.. If there are 16 teams - they can meat each other 2 times ( 30 rounds ) and so on, 8 matches streamed in 2 days etc.... Occasionaly like every 3-4 months top teams from each reagion will meet in a offline tournament. End of the year top teams go to TI, bottom teams drop out of the league. Newly formed teams fight eachother for the slots in the next season league and so on. This way players will have more time to spend in their homes, and thats good for them. Everybody complaned about last years non stop traveling situation.
Ofcourse if it it is too laggy to play online SEA vs China for example or if there are too many teams, regions can remain as they are, With maybe 8-12 teams in each, this way top two in each league go directly to TI, others play qualifiers for the remaining slots. Why not make TI with 24 teams, ( there are a lot of talanted teams these days) so there will be 12 remaining slots, and this way if a region is too good, they can win as much slots as they deserve. Online play will also give a chance to any random team to play from their homes and have a chance to participate in the league, no extra expenses. Also that should save enough money so Valve can host the Final Qualifier for the remaining sltots offline. And most importantly every week we will have a chance to watch out favourite teams play a game. Good for the fans too.
Thats just an idea, people that are actually proffesionally involved in the sport, can adjust the numbers so wthey fit the needs of teams / players / regions best.
I honestly wouldn't mind a league system. A week by week system reduces the load of having to stack more games per day like qualifier structures, allows regular viewing and promotes more regional competition. I feel LCS/LCK/even OWL made some good strides in league-centric esport infrastructure.
However league systems come at the cost of essentially removing third-party tournaments and puts a heavy burden on Valve to manage such leagues imo (otherwise quality/production/fairness between regions may suffer), and I don't think they really want to micromanage the esports side of their games.
I don't really have a problem with Major/Minor theoretically but I do agree it can be handled better. However my stance now is I have no issue with giving stronger regions more invites. It's better for viewership and higher quality games, despite the somewhat arbitrary nature of it.
The way I would change qualifiers would be to do bo2 league style round robin over a longer timeframe instead of GSL+Double Elim. I think GSL/Double Elim or Swiss/Double Elim is fine for major tournament formats though. Leagues are better at promoting regional competition imo. Something like NInoff said, 8-12 teams, 0/1/3 pts per match depending on bo2 status, top of the board (2-3 depending on region) get invited to Major. Bottom of the board relegated until the next major, open quals are hosting before each league. middle teams go to minor playoffs. Then I'm privy to OP's suggestion of top 4 teams in minor going to major. You'd probably reduce it to like 3 majors/3 minors + TI with the extended duration of leagues.
It's probably a little much (esp. on talent side) but I'm just spitballing
I also like the idea of moving more teams to the minor and rewarding the top spots with a major. The biggest current difficulty for that would be Visas. With the high pace of the tournaments there isn't a lot of air between minor and Major.
So just screw africa eh? We have proper players over here but like every thing else in the world we are perceived as weak . We don't even have a ranked server on the second biggest continent on the planet. Sad really and Ya'll are worried about EU and NA qualification slots.
I think the idea of a league is also appealing but considering how we had the online leagues in the beginning of Dota 2 before they all died out due to teams disliking the format it is unlikely. Especially since Valve would likely as you said not want to bother organising all the procedures.
On February 09 2019 16:19 HailHoff wrote: So just screw africa eh? We have proper players over here but like every thing else in the world we are perceived as weak . We don't even have a ranked server on the second biggest continent on the planet. Sad really and Ya'll are worried about EU and NA qualification slots.
Honestly I know absolutely nothing of the African Dota 2 scene, so I largely ignored it. Server support from Valve's side would help foster growth in the region but unless you at least have a small existing competitive scene established it would be too early for the region to be considered for qualification slots at a Major.
As I already said I am largely ignorant of the African scene so if I am about to spout non-sense I'd be happy to be proven wrong. But comparing Africa to Australia/Oceania or India which also suffers from lack of support from Valve they are probably more ready to become part of the DPC than Africa.
Please log in (you can use your steam or reddit account!) or register to reply.
