That makes it dependent on who you get in your group, though. If one good team is in a weak group, they may have a better round balance than a better team in a more competitive group.

So basically you're referring to a tournament setup like what was done at EMS One Katowice, right?

If so, how will you seed teams coming out of group stages (if it's a 3-group tournament)? With only 6 teams, at least one of the group winners (as well as the group runners-up) will have to play in the upper bracket first round while the other two group winners will get a bye. You'd have to move up to 4 groups or down to 2 groups to have it be "fair" for the group winners who all play a group runner-up in the first round with no byes.

EDIT: This is basically echoing #29.

All iT servers (with the exception of MGEiT) were shut down earlier this year.

ReSurfed is the spiritual successor to the iT surf servers.

A possibility that you might look into for betting is spread betting, where people bet on the margin of victory instead of the victor itself. It would help encourage betting in games with a clear favorite to win.

On the side you could also have over-under bets on match stats like damage totals, frags, Uber drops, etc.

Just submitted a pull request on GitHub that fixes a few syntax errors in the file. With those syntax errors fixed you no longer have to install the fonts to the system.

This HUD is awesome.

However, one thing I noticed is that the cap points are mostly but not completely obscured by the tournament status HUD (the one where teams ready). I would think that it's meant to completely obscure the cap points but I dunno. Same thing might apply with Payload but I've never seen that HUD.

#2 is impossible as most of your HUD is automatically hidden when you open the scoreboard and that isn't avoidable to the best of my knowledge.

Well, he doesn't even make enough as it stands, regardless of timing. Also, while the timing doesn't make a difference in the long run, it does make a difference that all this happens before he's gotten some cold hard cash for his work yet.

He's not even close, according to what he's told me, and he hasn't even seen a dime of Twitch money as they have 45 days after a month ends to send him a check, and it's only been about 30 since he started.

Given that, and all of what's happened in the past three days, he decided it simply wasn't worth it.

I have to say that I'm extremely amazed at how this turned out. I tried to make something similar that looked more like the traditional Dota 2 Captains Mode HUD a few months ago, but that isn't even close in terms of quality to what we saw last night.

Props to everyone involved - Lange, anangrysockpuppet, STAR_ and Jerma, Sal and cbear, all of the players involved, the rest of the Tip of the Hats staff and volunteers, and anyone else behind the scenes that helped make this amazing event happen.

SourceTV relays are a bit weird, but having one inside the LAN and having its sv_lan set to 0 should work. You can set it up by having a normal dedicated server with tv_relay set to the address of the normal SourceTV relay.

https://twitter.com/DreamHack/status/436993404753678336

Stream won't be guaranteed to be up due to DDoSes, VODs will be released after the event though.

There's definitely a problem here that I don't think has been addressed. Players and admins from both ESEA and CEVO are saying that players can play in both leagues (and some are encouraging it), but is this even realistic?

There were three hurdles to playing in both leagues before Killing's announcement earlier:

• players had to put down $40+ to play in both leagues. $15 for the CEVO league fee, $10 for the ESEA league fee, and ~$20 for premium during the season. That's just for playing in leagues and doesn't count costs for renting servers and other necessary items to have a chance at improving.
  
• the map schedule for ESEA and CEVO will not be coordinated. Teams in both leagues will likely have to practice two different maps a week. While teams in Europe do this, they have the benefit of one map being played the last week and the other carrying over into the next week. There's no such guarantee here.
  
• each league is having two matches a week. Teams aren't going to be able to do much else besides practicing for and playing their matches, and committing to this pretty much precludes a player from playing in another league like UGC Highlander, which would add another match and even more scrims to the schedule. In addition, the chance of having to play in a doubleheader (especially one that spans across leagues and doesn't share the same map) drastically increases.

Credit is due to Killing and ESEA for cutting the first of these obligations out by giving out Premium codes to ESEA Open teams. The average cost per player in a team drops about $9, which is a decent part of these costs. While it is a desperation move, ESEA is deepening its losses to do it, and that at least should be respected. As it is, the only thing they can try to aim for is breaking even - they're not magically going to start turning a profit.

The other two things are still issues, though. Lange said in the thread linked above that ESEA was not willing to work on sharing a map schedule with CEVO. That in itself is dividing players between leagues, and the ball is in ESEA's court now, with teams now signed up for CEVO but not ESEA. With the Season 16 map list all but finalized, and both league sharing all but one map, can ESEA look at working with CEVO to increase the overlap between schedules so that teams have to practice as few maps per week as possible? If ESEA was planning to do this unilaterally by matching CEVO's schedule as best they could, could they at least announce it so that teams can decide that they can play in both leagues?

Four matches a week seems like it will be less likely to change, since one league has to back down in order to reduce that number. ESEA isn't going to change theirs because they're the established league and have done two matches per week for a while, and CEVO has said they want to do two so that it will be a better value (even though running one per week would be about the same value as ESEA has running two per week) and because they want CEVO to have more competitive play. I understand both sides, but ultimately quite a few teams are not going to want to commit to playing four serious matches a week. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like there's any way to easily solve this issue (a pipe dream would be to have leagues share matches, but I don't see that happening).

Just my observations on the issue. Good luck to both leagues. We're counting on both of you.

Super-hyped for the server updates.

It's still a shame that nodmgspread is banned though.

I'm pretty sure that's a mistake. I seem to remember that I did get traffic on those maps right after release, and that part of the page hasn't been updated for a very long time.