EPTI understand the pros of having the team slots, especially from the casual spectator point of view, you can cheer and root and get to know your favourite teams. but why not have something like 3 players seeded for each team, and have the rest of spots from a single, or a series of qualifier tournaments, and if 6 liquid guys gets in, make them play eachother right away.
NASL and Teams: What's the Deal? - Page 2
| Blogs > Liquid`Tyler |
|
lovelyrose
Canada160 Posts
I understand the pros of having the team slots, especially from the casual spectator point of view, you can cheer and root and get to know your favourite teams. but why not have something like 3 players seeded for each team, and have the rest of spots from a single, or a series of qualifier tournaments, and if 6 liquid guys gets in, make them play eachother right away. | ||
|
Mairu
United States222 Posts
It puzzles me when I heard Russel speak last night about having some sort of balance and then also saying he wasn't even sure that all teams would have five NASL-caliber players that could play. Wouldn't it balance out the league to disregard the limit considering the majority of teams aren't going to have the same player-base as EG or Liquid? I don't really buy the collusion argument either, as it could and probably would happen even if the players weren't on a team. As far as requiring players on a team, while I understand this allows for more legitimate teams to pop up, I don't really understand this either. On SOTG Russel used the argument that a player in the NBA has to be on a team to play, but this isn't basketball. These are one on one matches that don't require the coordination in each individual game that other sports do. Teams definitely give the players an edge, but if they're encouraging player stories, what's a better player story than a no-name player entering the league, doing amazingly well for a player not on a team and then after his performance is adopted onto a team? This is exactly what happened last year with the GSL with LittleBoy. He surprised viewers with his performance and ended up being added to oGs' roster. Those kinds of stories are more exciting than seeing people just add themselves to a team in order to be considered at all. I realize they want accountability, but as you stated doesn't the $250 refundable fee already serve that purpose? | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On February 24 2011 06:53 Liquid`Tyler wrote: You'd have to explain a little more about how it's like players sitting on the bench in a baseball match. The game of baseball requires only so many players, but teams are allowed to have more for substitutions, so some guys sit on the bench. I'm not sure how the concept of substituting in tired/injured players is relevant at all to SC2/NASL. If the guy on the bench is equally skilled, but has different strengths and weaknesses, then that gets into your next point. Team management strategy. But honestly I think that should be left to team leagues. While your example is somewhat interesting, it's just very minimally interesting tbh. When management decisions are made for team leagues, they're 10x more interesting and they constantly matter. Would you really be so interested in TL making the decision of what 5 players it's going to enter? Is it worth having some lesser skilled, relatively unknown player in the tournament instead of a 6th TL guy? Mm... I think you snagged an idea there. Are there any forms of substitution? I think that'd be pretty awesome! Could create a little suspense and a little bit of team strategy. With no limitations, don't you think those with more players have more chances of winning and raking in more potential sponsors? This also goes against the views of people having no teams and going in alone. Then again, more sponsors means more players which may mean increased likelihood of winning (am I thinking too far?) It just seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. As for team management decisions and my perception, personally I find it thrilling, I may be alone, maybe not. Maybe I just don't understand the whole affair. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
This just makes NASL a worthless tournament that doesn't even attempt to show the best players against eachother. User was warned for this post. Don't make extreme statements such as "worthless" over the disagreement of a rule. EDIT: Okay, so what I said was misconstrued so I'll reiterate it again in a more understandable fashion. I believe in the idea that tournaments are supposed to show who the best players are, which should be their ultimate goal. Allowing people to get easier paths in or barring top players in favor of lesser players makes a tournament "worthless" in terms of attaining that goal. It just comes down to what you look for in the winner of a major NA tourney -- the best player, or the best player who was allowed to compete due to unfortunately planned out rules. | ||
|
GreatFall
United States1061 Posts
On February 24 2011 06:54 lovelyrose wrote: I feel the big problem with this 5 people from 10 teams ruling is that hurts larger, well known teams that are established and people like. at the same time, it rewards the people who barely manage to recruit 5 good players. obviously you don't wanna kick the lesser known teams down so they can't ever do anything, but a bigger problem is to kick team liquid, or even a well known player whose a great guy, and whose done a lot for foreigner esports down and be like "well leave your sponsor who you're loyal to and has treated you well for years and join some team that wont benefit you at all except for your nasl spot." I understand the pros of having the team slots, especially from the casual spectator point of view, you can cheer and root and get to know your favourite teams. but why not have something like 3 players seeded for each team, and have the rest of spots from a single, or a series of qualifier tournaments, and if 6 liquid guys gets in, make them play eachother right away. Exactly my point! Imagine if the 10th best player on one team would absolutely dominate the best player from another team. Sure, you will have amazing people in the tournaments; however, you will also have some pretty terrible games where one guy gets completely destroyed. Then why are we watching this instead of GSL where only the best of the best play? | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On February 24 2011 06:58 hmunkey wrote: Basing a tournament on teams that isn't a direct team league is incredibly broken. For one, not all teams are equal. Let's be honest here: Mouz, Liquid, and Dignitas are far better than VT, NrG, and vVv. So why should the better teams be limited down in the same way? On top of that, what about good players who aren't on teams? Whitera is better than 90% of so-called pros yet he isn't allowed to participate? This just makes NASL a worthless tournament that doesn't even attempt to show the best players against eachother. Disagree entirely and you're exaggerating in order to call for disagreement and confrontation. NASL worthless? Way to be ignorant and ignore everything about the NASL over relatively minor details. | ||
|
Keniji
Netherlands2569 Posts
On February 24 2011 06:48 Daigomi wrote:[...] To add to this, Xeris went on to say that teams are more likely to be able to sponsor their players. While true, this makes the money penalty more severe for players outside of teams since they will be losing their own money. As such, unsponsored players have a bigger incentive to follow the rules. Also, it's not as if not being sponsored will stop a player from flying out for the final 16. I mean, who wouldn't pay $500 for a 1/16 chance to make $100,000? In the extremely rare case that this happens, the tournament has ample replacements available from the group ladders. Money is the least likely reason for players to withdraw from the tournament, and the other reasons (like illness) are the same for players on teams and without teams.[...] plus a player that makes it into the final 16 of NASL would most likely get a contract within a few seconds anyway. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On February 24 2011 06:43 Torte de Lini wrote: I'll agree that the idea of someone needs to be on a team in order to compete is silly. It's counter-productive for people who want to get into the professional-scene and it kind of portrays NASL as an elite league moreso than a convenient one for many North-American players. With the 250$ refundable tax, I agree that the need of being on a team is only showing little faith in the willingness of lone aspiring players. Am I making sense here or what? I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa? Why should there be any team strategy? It's not Proleague its a totally individual league with people trying to win prizes for themselves and no one else. | ||
|
Stenstyren
Sweden619 Posts
Time to start Team'Liquid 2? | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
I'm curious though, what would happen if some team actually did do what Tyler jokingly proposed on SoTG, in other words - form an unofficial second team or even an official one and apply for the competition. Would NASL turn them down, and on what grounds? And if they're not turned down, you would still get the same issues as if players were literally on the same team, the only difference would be that Gas`TLO would play against Liquid`Tyler, instead of both players having the same tag. The bottom line is, teams shouldn't matter as a category in an individual league. Let the best players compete, that's the whole point of an individual starleague tournament. | ||
|
KWest
United States59 Posts
Now, on the issue of limiting to 5 players per team is something that doesnt feel reasonable. This concept is punishing the top tiered teams, which doesnt help sc2 as a whole. The top teams do more to improve a players skill, and having only 5 players would make less emphasis on a stronger/secure team. If there has to be a cap, to prevent a team turning into the NY Yankees, then 10 would be a reasonable cap that most people wouldnt debate. I think the concept of teamkills is overrated, and only should be minimized, not prevented. I know teammates hate playing each other, but I dont think any of them believe that playing each other is a end all situation. NASL is going to be epic nonetheless, and I feel like with community support we can create the ultimate sc2 league. | ||
|
MythicalMage
1360 Posts
On February 24 2011 07:01 infinity2k9 wrote: Why should there be any team strategy? It's not Proleague its a totally individual league with people trying to win prizes for themselves and no one else. So all top players LOVE eliminating their team mates? Sounds completely reasonable. If you're not on a team. | ||
|
Motion
Germany183 Posts
- Fair for everyone - Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles... - Interesting Player Transfers, cause a Clan could only hold 5 Starplayers. ( At least interesting for the Viewers ) - But the major point is: Less Team tactics | ||
|
Seronei
Sweden991 Posts
On February 24 2011 07:04 Motion wrote: Only five players per Team is absolutely okay, plz don't make a cow! - Fair for everyone - Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles... - Interesting Player Transfers, cause a Clan could only hold 5 Starplayers. ( At least interesting for the Viewers ) - But the major point is: Less Team tactics Forcing people to leave a team because of this tournament isn't something good. It's not fair for everyone cause if you're the sixth best player in a team you don't even have the chance to compete. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On February 24 2011 07:03 MythicalMage wrote: So all top players LOVE eliminating their team mates? Sounds completely reasonable. If you're not on a team. Why does it matter if they like it or not, it's been in the OSL and MSL for years. Teams in individual tournaments amounts to just a tag on their name, simple as that. So i don't know why there is rules related to it. Players should just be treated as individuals because that is the format of the competition. | ||
|
Turo
Canada333 Posts
| ||
|
Motion
Germany183 Posts
On February 24 2011 07:06 Seronei wrote: Forcing people to leave a team because of this tournament isn't something good. It's not fair for everyone cause if you're the sixth best player in a team you don't even have the chance to compete. It seems bad for Teams, but it is over all better for E-Sports. The only thing everybody has to do is, accept this rule. After a while this creates a nice E-Sports Scene around it. Yes it is bad right now, but not in the future! | ||
|
coddan
Estonia890 Posts
It strikes me as contradictory to say that you have to be on a team to be eligable to play in the tournament, but then go on to practically say your team is not allowed to have more than five players. The basketball analogy Russel gave on State of the game made absolutely no sense either. To say that "you can't just strap on a jersey and go play in the NBA" is ridiculous. The proper analogy would "you can't just go play tennis". And, well, I don't even have to explain that... | ||
|
Terrakin
United States1440 Posts
On February 24 2011 07:04 Motion wrote: Only five players per Team is absolutely okay, plz don't make a cow! - Fair for everyone - Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles... - Interesting Player Transfers, cause a Clan could only hold 5 Starplayers. ( At least interesting for the Viewers ) - But the major point is: Less Team tactics What does Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles... mean? And why would you want player transfers, especially player transfers forced just to get the good players in the league. also what does Only five players per Team is absolutely okay, plz don't make a cow! when you say make a cow do you mean make a fuss/big deal? If so what is the point of even posting if you say that? On February 24 2011 07:08 Motion wrote: Yes it is bad right now, but not in the future! You have to start living in the now, sure this would work in the "future" but the future is unforeseeable, and hell you just admitted it is bad right now so.... I mean if you've got a time machine I would love to go with you and just skip to the point where SC2 is huge and there are multiple US teams and an organization to control everything. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 24 2011 07:04 Motion wrote: Only five players per Team is absolutely okay, plz don't make a cow! - Fair for everyone - Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles... - Interesting Player Transfers, cause a Clan could only hold 5 Starplayers. ( At least interesting for the Viewers ) - But the major point is: Less Team tactics - How is it fair for everyone? It will almost certainly end up being unfair for at least some excellent players that won't be able to get a spot in their team. So they will not be able to compete in NASL with no fault of their own. - This doesn't make sense to me. Team based playstyles? =/ - It won't be interesting at all, because other teams will not have the financial capacity to take on the 6th player of a really good team. You're basically saying you want to not only force players to leave their teams in order to compete (where they probably have friends and a nice practice environment), you're also forcing them to work under a worse contract. - To be honest, I can live with team tactics much more easily than living with some top players not being able to play. How many oGs-TL players have had to knock each other out in every single GSL so far? Hyperdub played a ridiculous game against MC recently, but that didn't really take away from GSL as a tournament. | ||
| ||
