Wildcard Representation and Worlds Play-In: A Better Proposal
Since the introduction of International Wildcard teams at Worlds 2013, the topic of representing smaller regions has always been a greatly debated point among fans, especially considering the results of whatever team made it through. But year after year the upsets started piling up, from Pain Gaming eliminating CLG in 2015 to the great Albus Nox Luna run to Semifinals. And then Gigabyte Marines’ MSI 2017 breakout, not to forget how 1907 Fenerbahce was moments away from taking a map off of the soon-to-be World Champions Samsung Galaxy.
But despite the subsequent improvements that Riot has made to grant access to the upper echelons of competition, mainly with the removal of the pre-tournament called “International Wildcard Qualifier” and the introductions of the Play-In stage in early 2017, I still think there is room for improvement on how to select representatives from smaller regions.
This is why I came up with a suggestion for a new format for the Play-In stage, which in my opinion helps reflecting the difference in strength among teams and gives a fairer representation, less based on the luck of the draw. Here is the proposed format:
The twelve teams are divided in two groups and play a single round robin, for a total of 30 matches, which is less than the current format which features 36 matches. It could also be double round robin or single round robin with Bo2s, but in that case it would result in 60 matches, which takes quite some time in my opinion. First place from each group then faces fourth place from the opposite group in a Bo5; same holds for second place, who will face third place. The four winners qualify to the Main Event.
Why it is a better format than current Play-In?
Matches are more diverse. Current format has each team basically playing only two other teams, two times each, which can get boring in case there are heavy mismatches. Just think about Team WE manhandling Lyon Gaming and Gambit Esports twice in 2017. With this format, each team plays against five different opponents, leading to a more various experience and also a more realistic representation of a team’s level.
Losing games does not hurt your chance of moving on as much. Losing shouldn’t be good, indeed. But not as punishing as it is right now for a wildcard team: dropping two games is most likely a death sentence, since team #2 plays a Bo5 against a #1 team, usually miles above. Last year all Bo5 were 3–0s, excluding a single 3–1 (the only series played between wildcards). In the format I’m suggesting, the only real “death sentence” would be placing fourth, which pits you agains first place, while 2nd vs 3rd should be a closer series. This way every team is properly rewarded (or punished) for its performance during round robin.
Each team plays against more affordable opponents. As it is now, it looks easy for major region teams to walk over lesser teams, but these have a harder time since their match against the other wildcard basically turns into a do-or-die match. With this new format, wildcard teams play against 3 other wildcards and 2 major teams, which puts more emphasis on how much they can control their own fate.
Why is it a worse format than current Play-In?
Only one more game. Four games and you go home is not satisfying for losing teams, and probably adding one more game doesn’t change that feeling. The ideal format would include a double round robin, which makes it 10 games for each team and a more accurate evaluation of strength, but it would probably take too long.
Harder to prepare against specific opponents. More teams to face means more time and more effort to pour into Worlds preparation. Since a lot of regions (both major and minor) end their finals or Regional Qualifiers quite late into September, that leaves little room for preparation.
Upsets require less consistency and they are better rewarded. Upsets, the true essence of Worlds Group Stages! Current format implies that you have to beat a stronger team twice to really call it an upset, splitting games is not enough. My suggestion allows for single game surprises, and if it happens against the right team it could net you a 2nd place over a 3rd place, which can make a big difference for Bo5 placement. Just imagine, say, Turkey winning a game against EU and taking 2nd over them: we would likely have NA vs EU for a Group Stage spot!
Do you agree with the suggested changes? Would it help creating a better environment and representation for lesser teams? In my opinion it does by a great extent, and I hope Riot will consider upgrading format in a smiliar way for future MSI and Worlds.
