|
It does seem kind of weird to bring in team rules into a straight 1v1 tournament. Just like teammates, it is plausible that any two friendly players could be in the same bracket, and thus someone could be tempted to throw games to help his friend. Preventing team cheating seems like an oddly specific condition that only eliminates a portion of the possible avenues for collusion, with a decent cost to some of the biggest teams in SC2.
My main issue with this rule is that it directly conflicts with the goal of having the top 50 players participating in the tournament. If a team can field 6+ people that can make a legitimate claim to being in the top 50, it best serves the tournament to let them do so.
On the other hand, this would lead to smaller teams receiving more exposure, and thus possibly able to get more sponsorships. I could see this as being an unspoken goal of this rule, as having more sponsored teams is probably better in the long run for eSports than having a few big teams.
|
On February 24 2011 07:25 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 07:22 dredd276 wrote:
If we didn't have the 5-max-people-per-team rule wouldn't the people who were selected into the NASL who weren't on teams be really attractive additions for teams looking for talent? The NASL is going to be huge and the players in it will get lots of valuable exposure. So the "we want people on teams" problem should sort itself out.
tl;dr: most NASL players without teams would probably get picked up by teams What if a player is looking around for a good option? A few big names that have been without teams for prolonged periods of time in SC2: Boxer, Idra, Genius, Ganzi. This is absolutely not because they are not good enough but most likely they are just holding it off until they find the right team/deal. Also if being on Duckload constitutes as a team then basically any player can just find 1 sponsor and put it in front of his name.
Thanks for reminding me that this means I have to worry about where WhiteRa's gonna end up. He's definitely not on a "team" as far as I can tell, but hopefully he's "team" enough for NASL if they don't change their system.
|
the only reasonable argument i can see is that it's worse for esports if there was a monopoly on talent created; ie if teamliquid bought every single root/dignitas/fnatic etc player and the NASL was 50% liquid players, meaning that only liquid gets any exposure and all the other teams are screwed. however, i don't see that as a realistic scenario and if exposure from NASL was really that important then other teams would be encouraged to hold onto their players.
|
Obviously, Tyler, the Great Explainer, lays it all out beautifully.
But I still agree with both sides when it comes to collusion. Collusion will happen anyway you dice it, but the most obvious form would be team based collusion. The shear fact that it will be obvious to even the lay-watcher is why the NASL rule exists. Other collusion would be difficult to prove, and thus not as much of a problem publicity wise for the NASL
I certainly don't think the lack of collusion is an argument. People do it.
http://plegros.net/content/collusion-sumo-wrestling
/TROLL ON
The only way to help solve this and keep all the great features of group play, is to have some sort of rule that punishes the player in later rounds for loosing in earlier rounds. Thus if they face that same opponent again they would be at a disadvantage and will therefore be incentivised to not throw games.
Yes the only thing to save the NASL is extended series.
/TROLL OFF
Seriously though, some sort of point system that seriously matters to players would hopefully help this. They would have to way collusion with possibly loss of advantage. My details are hazy but surely some sort of system exists or could be created.
|
Wouldn't it be more fair if better players got to play, stars if you may, instead of worse players from worse teams get to play just because there is a 5 player teamlimit?
|
On February 24 2011 07:26 PHedemark wrote:
From a PR point of view it's horrible to only have sponsored players in the game. It's horrible for a solo league not to have the outsiders and dark horses. Especially since the NASL want to embrace the entire North America. In reality they only embrace the select few who have been picked up by teams that can contribute $1250 + eventual costs for the Grand Finals.
I'm inclined to think, as someone also noticed in the Q&A thread, that the team aspect is to make the handpicking of players easier. Hell, there are thousands of players who'd love to get a shot at the NASL, but there will never be a good way to pick the 50 attendants. Sure, we can all agree on about half of them (atleast if we only take NA players into account), but from then on it's a matter of personal taste. Do you like player X over player Y?
I can easily follow your line of thought and I feel like the exclusion of players not on teams are a bad thing, but I'm unable myself to come up with a good way to qualify players. Cups seems bad, invitations based on results just as bad and popularity contests are neither a good idea....
No, the money is really a minor investment for any team with a player good enough to send to the tournament, it's fully refundable and makes people accountable and I don't even like the max players rule.
|
I posted this in the Q&A thread as well, but i dont think i got a response
lets hypotheically pretend theres an NA team with super gosu players equlivant to
MC/MVP/Nestea/MKP/FD/Clide??
how do you as a team manger decide which 5 will play and who will have to try and qualify?? in a 1000 man tourny..
not only that with such a high prize (100k, 200k) the person who is excluded depending on their personality/ambition may opt to leave the team just for the chance to play.
I dont see how anyone can justify this rule if players end up leaving teams for in order compete. Maybe they wont leave the team for a 100k prize pool, but what if 2 years from now the prize pool is 500k? would you leave then?
|
On February 24 2011 07:21 wonderwall wrote:Show nested quote +If you had Huk vs TLO and Jinro vs Tyler semifinals, would it really be a tournament with no "competitive edge" and "excitement" Something the NASL is going to try and sell is team rivalry and competition. While you might love that semifinal from a promoters prospective it might be less amicable.
The way I heard it, they want to promote it as an individual tournament that involves the best players (while at the same time having a rule that denies some of them the chance to compete). The only place where they mention teams is the awkward rule they added and the excuses they made for it.
And to be honest, no informed sponsor would shy away from having Huk, TLO, Jinro and Tyler (just an example) in the ro4. It would generate sick hype and interest.
Also, "team rivalry and competition" isn't that developed in the foreign scene at all, so it's hardly a good selling point. If they really wanted to promote that, they should have gone for a proleague format rather than an individual starleague one.
|
So basically Tyler made this whole argument so all the members of his team can qualify. There are a few reasons why I disagree. For one, I think team kill matches suck. I never enjoy them, and the drama in a team kill is no where near as good as the drama inherent in a division with members from a wide variety of teams, which promotes rivalry, and we get to see which team gets more players to the playoffs. This is infinitely better than a team kill round.
Second, I think the real drama here is who the teams will nominate to participate in the NASL. This motivates members of teams to practice and play better so their team is confident in sending them out. Maybe there will be in-team battles to see who makes it. I want to see the progress of inner-team ladders, where the top 5 are going into the NASL. That is way better drama than having a "team kill" round which honestly sounds terrible to me. On top of that, teams basically running the team kill scenarios on their own in order to choose the 5 players they're sending serves the same purpose, and provides far better drama. I can't wait to see the starting line up of teams, that's part of the story to me.
Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
|
Well said. Only one thing I would add, which is that the team requirement takes away the best thing about eSports; it's a meritocracy. If you are talented, dedicated, and work harder than the other guy you can become successful and well known. Sure for the GSL and the NASL you might have to play through a big bracket tournament to get an invite to a main event, but you really are only limited by the talent you have. Anything that takes away from that is a bad thing in my opinion.
|
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote:
So basically Tyler made this whole argument so all the members of his team can qualify. There are a few reasons why I disagree. For one, I think team kill matches suck. I never enjoy them, and the drama in a team kill is no where near as good as the drama inherent in a division with members from a wide variety of teams, which promotes rivalry, and we get to see which team gets more players to the playoffs. This is infinitely better than a team kill round.
Second, I think the real drama here is who the teams will nominate to participate in the NASL. This motivates members of teams to practice and play better so their team is confident in sending them out. Maybe there will be in-team battles to see who makes it. I want to see the progress of inner-team ladders, where the top 5 are going into the NASL. That is way better drama than having a "team kill" round which honestly sounds terrible to me. On top of that, teams basically running the team kill scenarios on their own in order to choose the 5 players they're sending serves the same purpose, and provides far better drama. I can't wait to see the starting line up of teams, that's part of the story to me.
Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
You seriously want members of a team to compete AGAINST each other for the opportunity to play? That might work for some teams with a larger player pool, but some teams try to have their entire "team" aspect built on comaraderie, not competition.
|
On February 24 2011 06:53 echO [W] wrote:
Liquid`Tyler for president 2012.
wtf i was thinking the exact same thing xD
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote:
Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote:
So basically Tyler made this whole argument so all the members of his team can qualify. There are a few reasons why I disagree. For one, I think team kill matches suck. I never enjoy them, and the drama in a team kill is no where near as good as the drama inherent in a division with members from a wide variety of teams, which promotes rivalry, and we get to see which team gets more players to the playoffs. This is infinitely better than a team kill round.
Tyler didn't just make this thread because he wan't all his team to qualify, he made this thread because he didn't agree with the rules. That's why he presented logical arguments instead of just stating "these rules suck because it excludes my teammates."
Allowing teams to have more than 5 players will not have only team kills, it would have maybe five games where players play against their teammates in a season, out of hundreds of games. If you don't like team kill matches, that's fine, you'll have hundreds of other games to watch. However, just the uncertainty that players could play their own teammates, and the rarity of the occurence, would probably make the teamkill matches very interesting.
Finally, "team kill" is a misnomer, since the groups will not be elimination groups. As such, you will not be knocked out of the tournament by a single game against a teammate.
On February 24 2011 07:36 wonderwall wrote:Show nested quote +Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill. Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
He brought it up as an example of a team kill, I followed the example. The logic stays the same though. Arguing that people who support EG would prefer to have one EG player excluded from the tournament rather than have two EG players play each other in a non-teamkill way is absurd.
|
The way I heard it, they want to promote it as an individual tournament that involves the best players (while at the same time having a rule that denies some of them the chance to compete). The only place where they mention teams is the awkward rule they added and the excuses they made for it.
There's a few things which indicate to me they want to sell a more storyline based product where the audience have a connection with the players. Everyone has to be part of a team to be eligible to enter. Players have to answer a series of pre-season questions about themselves. NASL will feature player interviews and so-forth.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
|
I listened to the SoTG last night. Although NASL brought up several points, I feel the first is the most important. I agree having team mates play each other in the first rounds does solve the problem, it does restrict matchups.
Looking at it from a numbers perspective... With 10 players per league, each league playing once a week, with each player playing every other player once...
So the best record would be 9-0 and a middle ground would be 5-4 or 4-5. With only 3/10 spots open to advance, you would need a record of 7-2 / 8-1 to advance in most cases. 6-3 could advance but would likely need a tie breaker match. In fact 7-2 is also likely to require a tie-breaker playoff.
This means for a player to have an opportunity to throw a match to help a teammate advance, they would have to be at least on track for 7-2 or more likely 8-1. AND the other player would need to be at least on track for 6-3 / 5-4.
This means you really have the first 2/3rds of the season in which to play these team games. Only the last 3 games need to be non-team kills.
There is another options of one teammate being around 5-4 / 6-3 and the other much lower (2-7) with no chance of qualifying. Here he could throw the game to get the teammate into the final. However in this case the better player would likely win anyway. The poorer player is also trying to retain their NASL slot, and you would still need to be 2/3rds through a season before any of this would matter.
This is of course assuming team mates are split between leagues with 2 per league (10 total per team). Currently I don't know of any teams that could field 10 players to this league. Of course the argument; what if you have 2 teams of 25 players each? That I would say is very unlikely. A 10 player cap would not be perfect but would be much more fair then a 5 player.
I think the 5 player rule is silly and is more likely to cause teams to break up rather then grow. In terms of team focused play, you can always make a team league!
Also team-kill drama is awesome. Tyler is of course right that the games can be very unique as each player knows the others style so well.
|
Liquid`Tyler speaks only truth. Remove the cap so we can enjoy all of Team Liquid and Team EG, should they choose to participate!
If you want to make NASL Proleague, do it separate. This is a Starleague.
|
@Daigomi
@Mastermind
Like i said, it's not fair right now, but look neutral on it. In future there are 5 Players from a team in the 50 Players over all. So you should have 10 Teams with each 5 Players right ?
NO! there aren't 10 Teams with 5 Starplayers. Instead of having 8 Players from "Star-Team Y" and 7 Players from "Star-Team X" we have more diversity, more players from smaller teams, this is much more fair!
It will be like:
5 From Star Team Y, 5 From Star Team X, 3 From Good Team Z, 1 From Average Team W ...
Otherwise it will be
10 From Star Team Y, 8 From Star Team X, 5 From Good Team Z, 0 From Average Team W ...
It's more fair because you don't have to be like TL, even root has some sponsor issues...
If we don't make this rule, then there will be only some Clans with large financial background and YOU as a new Player without the Big Star Team will have no chance to compete!
|
The sc1 scene already made a mistake like this. They restricted the players freedom and the teams freedom and it garnered a lot of hate. This is the kind of nonsense that becomes kespa. You absolutely cannot restrict freedoms like this and expect a better result.
|
gotta agree with Nony's original OP... I really want to hear a reason from NASL on why they are narrowing the entrance using "team base".
Its true that narrowing the input is important to improve the games quality overall but using team is such a dumb way to deal with it.
Unless they are afraid of combatex coming to LA to join NASL, i dont think there is any reason to use such a method.
|
You can build back story, hype, accountability and story lines without this rule. The worst case scenario removing the cap would be them accepting all of the sick-o players on a team over some (in this example) lower class players due to the invitational format.
If their goal is to have all of this back story, hype, accountability, what have you, this rule just seems arbitrary to all of those things imo. If anything, it takes away the hype from team kills and the inner team rivalries they could create with the match-ups they would have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
