|
On February 26 2011 00:53 br0fivE wrote:
I like how ppl like to say "lets make esports grow"
But majority of the tournaments have the same people in it
Theres nothing wrong with that, but how is Esports suppose to grow when its just the same ppl competiting/being invited.
It gives "lesser" named people barely a chance to get there name out there
TSL3 has been great @ getting more people into the qualifiers, earning points etc etc. There are so many lesser names winning TSL qualifiers because the tourny is set up perfectly. It opens up esports to everyone, instead of only "pro's". GSL, anyone could of went to korea to try-out.
Where as NASL is just PRO teams and thats all. I believe theres more talent out there but are discouraged by the lack of opportunities.
I know theres ton of small prize money tournys, but when something like this (nasl) comes out its huge, but at the same time limiting Esports exposure.
my rant
I think you may have a different definition of "let's make esports grow" than most people do. You seem to think of it in terms of accessiblity to players, while most other people think of it as making the broadcasting of competitive video games more mainstream/accessible.
In that case, NASL is right to invite the top/well known players to their tournament simply because that would attract more initial viewers.
The points that you make are valid, and I don't think that they will fall on deaf ears. As far as I know, the transistion between season 1 and season 2 of NASL has not been announced yet. It could be that there will be open tournaments to replace the players that performed poorly during season 1. There are just a lot of unknowns at this point and it's a little premature to start ranting about things that may or may not be true. Just chill. You're in Tyler's blog. 
|
On February 26 2011 01:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I think TeamLiquid might need to bite the bullet and accept that their team will suffer and that the quality of games might be lower, but this will in fact be good for the SC2/esports community.
I don't understand how having lower quality games could be good for the community.
Okay, yeah, the giant tournament might be good for the community, but the point is that it could be better.
Having more one-sided games is unlikely to appeal to an audience as opposed to having more spectacular games.
|
To be honest I never understood why being on a team was required. It's going to make it that much harder for players not on teams to bust into the scene. And where do people like WhiteRa fit into this? He's got sponsors, but he's not technically on a team (I think?), but he's an absolutely incredible player who should be playing in the NASL.
I dunno. It seems like an arbitrary restriction that is just going to create more problems than it solves, same with the "5 players/team" thing. When I heard the discussion on SOTG it sounded like Tyler raised some good objections and Geoff and Russ didn't really have good answers to them, unfortunately.
|
On February 26 2011 01:57 Ghanburighan wrote:
I think TeamLiquid might need to bite the bullet and accept that their team will suffer and that the quality of games might be lower, but this will in fact be good for the SC2/esports community.
I have yet to see a single argument supporting that statement (that it will be good for the sc2 community).
|
My biggest issue with this rule is that the NASL is an individual league, seeking to have the best players in it, but decide to let players in both based on skill and what team they're on.
Liquid has six strong players. I would argue any liquid player is at least better than one of any 5 VT players (not to pick on VT - TL's just nasty) - and now the quality of the tournament is lowered by a rule that is an attempt to stop team mates from hitting each other and fixing results. Tyler's ideas are a fine alternative, and don't damage the overall quality of players in the tourney.
Players should get in the NASL based on individual merit, not on the rather arbitrary number of how many good players their are on their team
|
I don't know much about the sponsorship side of sponsoring a team or a player, but what if NASL was designed to promote more sponsoring of well known teams. With the amount of viewership sponsers may look toward this structure and want to sponsor a team because I think sponsoring a team may look more attractive then sponsoring an individual player. And by NASL limiting the number of team members now, in the future more teams may become sponsored and open up more oppurtunities for a sponsored team league.
|
On February 26 2011 05:29 Gentleman7 wrote:
My biggest issue with this rule is that the NASL is an individual league, seeking to have the best players in it, but decide to let players in both based on skill and what team they're on.
Liquid has six strong players. I would argue any liquid player is at least better than one of any 5 VT players (not to pick on VT - TL's just nasty) - and now the quality of the tournament is lowered by a rule that is an attempt to stop team mates from hitting each other and fixing results. Tyler's ideas are a fine alternative, and don't damage the overall quality of players in the tourney.
Players should get in the NASL based on individual merit, not on the rather arbitrary number of how many good players their are on their team
I completely agree. Just heard about this issue on the most recent SOTG and I agreed so strongly with Tyler that I just had to find his thread and support his argument/the discussion as a whole.
An individual league should be exactly that -- individual. Team kills are unfortunate sure, but it's just a part of the game. It's not a team league, so there shouldn't be any rules based on the completely separate construct of a team.
---------------
In the end, I'd rather have collusion than exclusion.
Somebody should make a poll to get the community's feel on this issue, because, after all isn't the NASL supposed to be about what's best for the community? Wasn't that the whole idea?
|
Collusion is guaranteed in any tournament offering prizes of any value. It doesn't matter what 'team' the person is on. Every serious professional in any major competitive scene has friends (and possibly enemies) within that professional scene, and the team they are on doesn't necessarily dictate who they'd be willing to collude with. For example, a person from Team A might lose on purpose to help someone else from Team B because they've known each other from 10 years of SC:BW gaming. Nothing can prevent that.
The Team restriction is guaranteed exclusion which only has the loose appreance of preventing collusion. It does nothing to truly prevent collusion because nothing truly can.
That being said, I recognize that the NASL has some unique challenges ahead of it and hopefully the people running it continue to be flexible regarding their rules as they move forward. It does appear they have put tremendous thought into how to put this thing together and I think it is more fair to judge it with more scrutiny after the first season concludes.
|
On February 26 2011 05:50 McFly wrote:
I don't know much about the sponsorship side of sponsoring a team or a player, but what if NASL was designed to promote more sponsoring of well known teams. With the amount of viewership sponsers may look toward this structure and want to sponsor a team because I think sponsoring a team may look more attractive then sponsoring an individual player. And by NASL limiting the number of team members now, in the future more teams may become sponsored and open up more oppurtunities for a sponsored team league.
If they were going to promote sponsoring of well known teams, this rule accomplishes the exact opposite - because it actually limits the well known teams, which limits both the potential success of the team and air time the sponsors get (because they effectively sponsor only 5 players where they could've sponsored 6 or 7 without the rule).
There's no real reason to believe that just because you limit the powerhouse teams, the other, smaller teams will suddenly attract better sponsorship deals or be able to somehow afford paying salary to their players. Those two things are not directly related at all, and if anybody thinks they are, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that opinion.
It's going to be a 50 man league split into 10 divisions during the online stage, so 3 players get to qualify for the final event from each division. Players that didn't deserve (skill-wise) an invitation to the NASL will end up bottom of their online divisions anyway. How will that help those teams progress?
In fact, unless the stars align, the current top teams will easily get the top 3 in each division. Easily. Players from smaller teams will mostly be filler and will be lucky to get placed in top 5, because they objectively can't compete with actual professionals that train full-time. Full-time professionals come only from the very top teams - by limiting those top teams, you limit the number of potential full time pro players (which bring quality to the game), and replace them with part-time players which, for all their skill and talent, just can't progress past a certain point.
Ultimately you also hurt the players on smaller teams. Without this rule, if one of them shows real promise, Liquid or EG could just sign him, give him a solid salary, top notch practice partners, and a chance to make a career as an actual pro player. But with a 5 man limit, he'll be forced to stay on a smaller team that can't really pay him, which means he's eventually have to focus on university or a day job, which means he'll never reach his true potential.
|
The team requirement, as Tyler mentioned, goes completely against the other professed desire of getting newcomers into the tournament with regard to the open tournament. Does the team requirement only apply to the top invites and not to the open tournament competitors? That seems pretty silly. Or do the open tournament players also have to be part of a team? They want new up and comers to get onto the scene but they have to be part of a team first?
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
with 20 ogs's in the tournament how is an EG player gunna make it far in the tourney you sillies!
|
On February 27 2011 07:19 Rekrul wrote:
with 20 ogs's in the tournament how is an EG player gunna make it far in the tourney you sillies!
hows poker going
|
For all you naysayers out there, what would the Olympic Games look like if there weren't limits to the number of athletes each nation could field per event? Were you even aware that these limits existed?
In a country like the USA, it happens all the time that an athlete ranked in the top 5 in the world doesn't get the opportunity to compete at the Olympics, even though their chances or getting the gold are realistic, because he/she couldn't earn one of the limited births. And yet, Tunisia can send the same number of athletes as the USA even though their chance of medaling is zero. Is this not fair to the USA?
Or how about we look at our own Senate. Why does each state get the same number of senators even though the wealth and populations of states demonstrate otherwise? Can you deny there is a purpose for this? As well, notice that any 1 senator from any state carries more prestige and power than any 1 representative in the House.
|
On February 27 2011 16:21 JustAnotherKnave wrote:
For all you naysayers out there, what would the Olympic Games look like if there weren't limits to the number of athletes each nation could field per event? Were you even aware that these limits existed?
In a country like the USA, it happens all the time that an athlete ranked in the top 5 in the world doesn't get the opportunity to compete at the Olympics, even though their chances or getting the gold are realistic, because he/she couldn't earn one of the limited births. And yet, Tunisia can send the same number of athletes as the USA even though their chance of medaling is zero. Is this not fair to the USA?
Or how about we look at our own Senate. Why does each state get the same number of senators even though the wealth and populations of states demonstrate otherwise? Can you deny there is a purpose for this? As well, notice that any 1 senator from any state carries more prestige and power than any 1 representative in the House.
I don't think that NASL rules should be unfair to the players. It ends up being that way because if your the sixth best player on a team you are SOL. I don't think it is fair to make a player consider a worse team or contract simply to have a chance in NASL. I don't think the olympics comparison is fair in that your still advocating hurting one players chances to favor someone who might not even give their moneys worth.
also there is a clear reason for congress being split into two distinct chambers that function differently.
|
I know I'm just repeating a lot of what's been said already, but I'd like to add my support.
When I first skimmed the NASL rules interview on G4's site, this rule jumped out as ridiculous. Why are teams discussed in an individual league. I know iNcontroL is butthurt about playing Machine every MLG, but it's an individual tournament as well. MLG has some ridiculous rules and isn't the best organized tournament out there, but they don't go around screwing with an individual tournament by including anything that has to do with teams. I'm worried also about a related issue, which is the way invites are being handled.
Anyway, I hope this league is a success, but leaving the 10th best player available out of the tournament because 5 of his teammates are better is worse for everyone. The fans, the teams, everyone. Randomize the brackets, don't worry about team kills, and let anyone who is good enough and can put up $250 play.
Rules like this reek of one person or a small group coming up with something that sounds good in their head, but only fixes a minor issue nobody else is worried about and rips open a wormhole of legitimate complaints.
|
On February 27 2011 16:21 JustAnotherKnave wrote:
Or how about we look at our own Senate. Why does each state get the same number of senators even though the wealth and populations of states demonstrate otherwise? Can you deny there is a purpose for this? As well, notice that any 1 senator from any state carries more prestige and power than any 1 representative in the House.
They shouldn't. That gives a vote in Rhode Island a disproportionate amount of political say, as compared to a voter from Cali.
One's preformance in NASL should have nothing to do with what team they're on. A team liquid player should have just as much a chance as an EG play.
In related news: Is this why EG dropped Inka? With Inka, their roster is: iNcontroL, Idra, Strifecro, Axslav, Demuslim, Grubby. If they had Inka, they would have to choose a player besides Grubby who wouldn't play. Regardless, I'll be interested to see what iNc does if suddenly Strifecro and Grubby start out playing him.
|
I don't think that NASL rules should be unfair to the players.
being unfair to some entity is the nature of rules. they are limiting forces. it is natural and automatic to want to operate outside of rules. and yet the purpose of instituting such structure exists, because without rules inequalities are gross and easily recognizable.
the design of this rule is not to be unfair to or to limit players, but instead to limit a teams size. A player can still strive to be the best. In the end it will be for the teams' good, for ultimately they will pour more resources and support into the 5. If one is 6th best on a team, they are just not good enough, regardless of world rank. It is best to accept that and work to supplant one of your teammates. Real sportsman wouldn't balk at this, because they live for and are satisfied and motivated by competition at all levels.
Showing one's worth on the team precedes participation in the venue of NASL. Welcome to the world of sports - the competition is everywhere, even on your own team.
|
I think what the NASL is missing is the opportunity for a no-name or some grass-root player to surprise and dominate. This is one of the most interesting aspects of the TL Opens.
What I think is you have the teams, even with the 5player/team rule, but you set aside 5-10 spots as an open qualification. That way player #6 has a chance to enter, and JoeSchmoe Masters Leaguer has a chance to enter and surprise the world.
|
E-sports is not just about the players (... well that's kinda duh, let me go on...) it's about sponsors getting involved. This kind of initiative leaves room for hopeful e-sports businessmen to scout good players (based on your TL-Opens/Zotac Cups...), make their own team and get sponsors, sponsors that would love to have their own hip new Starcraft team with players wearing their shirts and promoting then on livestreams and whatnot.. or at least that's the idea behind NASL I guess.
|
There are two main points that seem to jump out at me on this topic. One is that the NASL has said they want to focus on the players, and that their goal is to have the "top 50 players in the world" competing. That is a worthy goal, for sure, but placing limits on team entries is in direct conflict with it. If the 14th best player in the world happens to be the 6th best on his/her team, then the NASL, by its own rules, cannot possibly have the world's 50 best players competing.
The second key point is the accountability issue. As was stated in a reply on page 1, the $250 refundable deposit should be enough to ensure accountability because people not on a sponsored team will be paying that out of their own pocket, and therefore have more incentive to follow the rules and get it refunded. Adding a rule that players must be part of a sponsored team is redundant and once again contradictory to the goal of having the world's best players compete.
Essentially, any player exclusion based on something other than skill is hindering what the NASL is attempting to achieve. Obviously I'm not talking about cheating or other blatantly obvious reasons for disqualification here, but potentially being exluded for being on a large team with at least 5 better players than you (in other words, being excluded for who your practice partners are) just doesn't make sense to me.
I hope the NASL will listen to the community's feedback on this subject, and either amend the rules or further explain the reasoning behind their current decision. I also want to take a moment here to say that these criticisms are meant in a constructive manner, and I really am pleased and excited to see a development such as the NASL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
