rei, regardless of whether it's a bo1 or bo3, is this not a voluntary league where the players opt in on their own accord and have the desire to play Starcraft? If this fact is established--that this league should be for people who actually want to play, then the issue of time constraint shouldn't be a factor. Not to mention that a BO3 taking 90 minutes would be incredibly rare.
I feel like Jjang is right, if you are committed to playing in a league at all then you likely are committed to playing more than just 1 game a week for ~15 min. There used to be a diamond set that was bo3 before masters were allowed in the league so perhaps Instead of rotating bo3's or all bo3's another idea could be to have a few sets as bo3? I feel at least the diamond slots deserve that.
Typical team UR "MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THIS MUCH TIME OR YOU ARENT SERIOUS ENOUGH FOR THIS LEAGUE"
the more things change the more they stay the same. Not everyone in this league is in the same life situation but that doesn't mean they still can't play a game a week on top of the league requirements your team has constantly banded for and stuffed ballot boxes for while occusing any dissenter of being a cheat.
I do in fact like the single bo3 a week - that way players who can't commit to two hours but can commit to 45 min or similar can still get in.
This is a topic that is brought up every single season and there is no need to claim it comes only from a single team. Jjang is newer to the league and brings valid opinions that have been brought up before. The Bo3 argument is obviously one we have every season, and your suggestion for how to handle the games requirement was used in the past (albeit when MMR decay was a thing).
The below are my opinons as someone who has been here for a very long time--this is not to say my long time here makes my opinions any more valid than anyone else's, just a statement on what I personally believe does and does not work.
This league is a casual league. There are competitive aspects which are fostered as much as possible, but further pushing out casual players, who do make up a considerable base, is not an option. Every set being Bo3 will never happen. If that's something people want, they need to vote for different admins entirely because I'm fairly certain we all agree on that. Adding additional Bo3's scattered about is an annoyance on par with some of the more convoluted concepts about eligibility that have been used in the past and I personally don't see it as a good fit. Keep in mind that what you believe is simple to schedule and fit in will not match with someone else's beliefs. Just because you personally have plenty of time to play a lot of matches throughout a week does not mean every person in the league does or even wants that. I always enjoyed being able to practice intensely one map and match-up for a week and execute that plan. I didn't want to play a Bo3 (though I think I did play in one ace match).
I can't remember if I've said it anywhere here recently or only in admin chat, but my belief about some of the opinions on the CTL and wanting to try new things is because the CTL is so unique. It is the only league of its kind and has been successful for an impressively long time. Because it is successful, and other leagues which have tried to start and failed miserably (beyond just PGTL), there is a gap of what people who like to have in a league (Bo3's, bizarre maps, extremely strict ladder requirements, etc) and what the CTL offers and that's fine. The CTL does not exist to satisfy every single desire every person might have. I think it's important people branch out from the CTL and participate in things like Kam's league or VTL for those additional experiences. The CTL exists within its specific format and is highly successful because of (or in spite of?) this. I don't believe changing or adding additional constraints on players that change the league's concept are good ideas.
Just curious and asking for clarification from tbham. You state if players want BO3's they need to vote for new admins. I take this as you are very against BO3's but I also dont really see you explaining why that is (only a small mention about casual players taking more time). I'm sure there has to be more to it then added time of playing versus the opponent to make you feel that way. Any chance you can explain that?
I'm not on either side of BO3 or BO1 and I'm not arguing, just curious. For reference I'm pro all BO1 or all BO3, stop having the masters set be different for zero real reason.
It's just the superior format to me in this setting.
I view the CTL as a league where you get a chance to practice your ass off for an opponent you know, on a map you know, for a single point in your team's week. It's my opinion that having Bo3's diminishes this aspect by a lot.
Yup - you're going to die to cheeses. The CTL's great for exposing how bad you are against cheeses. See: Season 19 and SC Swarm. They weren't lucky--they practiced builds and won a league that rewards teams that practice specific builds.