|
South Africa4316 Posts
On February 24 2011 08:01 Zim23 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 07:56 Daigomi wrote:On February 24 2011 07:48 Zim23 wrote:On February 24 2011 07:47 Daigomi wrote:On February 24 2011 07:36 wonderwall wrote: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. If it was limited to 2 than you have an argument, but 5 players is enough to see most of your favorite players. If they don't make it to the starting lineup it means they weren't good enough to make it. Time for them to practice hard and make it to the A team, just like BW. That's not relevant to my reply though. Your point was that teamkills suck, and you used the example of Idra and Jinro. I said that the limitation removes the "problem" of teamkills by excluding either Idra or Jinro from the start, a situation which is obviously worse. What you make is a different argument, and argument that the five players is enough for any team, and that any players not good enough should simply practice more. What happens if your sixth player is better than 80% of the players who enter the tournament though? That player is clearly being disadvantaged by being in a strong team. Saying a player who should qualify for the Final 16 should just "practice more", simply because he has an all star team with him is unreasonable. In BW, "A team" only mattered in Team Leagues. Anyone could enter individual leagues on their own strength. Flash went to the quarterfinals of the OSL before he was on the A team of KTF, for example. If KTF could choose to send five players, do you think Flash would have played in that OSL? Players in individual leagues should not be disadvantaged for being in a strong team, and tournaments should not choose weaker players based on arbitrary limitations. Yeah that's an interesting point, but it doesn't really exist as far as I can tell. To my knowledge there isn't really a team with a 6th member better than 80% of the league. Most teams have a couple players who win tournaments or are fairly successful, and 3 or 4 other really good players. Once there is a team with 6 possible tournament winners, while most other players in the league are subpar I could definitely see your argument holding water, and you'll see me changing my tune. 
So if there's no team with a sixth member strong enough to be in the tournament, why do they need the limitation? That's exactly the point, if there are players strong enough to compete in the tournament (e.g. Haypro, Axslav) then they should not be excluded based on an arbitrary rule. If there are no such players, then you don't need a rule for it. Either way, you shouldn't make the rule since it can only harm the tournament.
EDIT: Just to point out again, teamkill is a complete misnomer since the tournament is not an elimination tournament. Players will play against their teammates, but if they are the best two players in the group then both will still qualify.
|
Let me gather this up a little. Tyler argued that early round team kills was good entertainment and better drama, and I'm of the opinion that team kills suck. I hate seeing them, especially in early rounds. I never enjoy seeing my favorite team getting 3 or 4 members in the same group. I would rather see a solution like the NASL is implementing, where teams themselves decide who to send based on team ladder or whatever metric they choose. Is that the best solution? Absolutely not, I would rather see all good players participate regardless of their team, and ALSO a way to avoid team kills in the early rounds. It's just my opinion that I would rather see the 5 player cap than see early team kills.
I think that sums it up better, and if you would rather see an entire team lineup play even if it means team kills/group play shenanigans then that's OK, it's your opinion and I'm 100% OK with it. <3 <3
|
On February 24 2011 07:54 Motion wrote:
Okay you dont get it right?
let me make it very clear with a very simple example:
Just imagine Hwaseung OZ comes new to the scene. Jaydong would have only one chance to play in NASL: Though the 1000man Tornament, well you all know this is random crap.
So with only 5 Players per Team, the Rookie Jaydong from the New Team Hwaseung OZ will have a better chance to compete in NASL. Just because more Teams means more diversity and easier qualification for new good team based players!
Not gonna happen anytime soon dude. We're talking about now, and not 10 years from now where maybe Esports is huge in NA and all the kids got into SC2 at a very young age like the Koreans.
And your Jaedong argument is exactly Tyler's point. Why restrict a young talent from participating just because you allow 5 per team? If a team has 6 Jaedongs, one of them won't be able to play, or he will have to join a shitty team just because of one single tournament?
And like you said, the 1000man tournament thing is crap. The 50 player invite thing is flawed. Since we want to see the best players, make them earn their spot, through qualifiers. Maybe the problem is how the 50 players are selected.
|
On February 24 2011 07:54 Motion wrote:
Okay you dont get it right?
let me make it very clear with a very simple example:
Just imagine Hwaseung OZ comes new to the scene. Jaydong would have only one chance to play in NASL: Though the 1000man Tornament, well you all know this is random crap.
So with only 5 Players per Team, the Rookie Jaydong from the New Team Hwaseung OZ will have a better chance to compete in NASL. Just because more Teams means more diversity and easier qualification for new good team based players!
Among many bad analogies on this topic, no offense but that's the worst one. =P
The way western scene works, if a player wants to get good and improve past the "weekly cup hero", he needs to get on a good team with good players. Only then can he actively work on improving and furthering his career. Take Huk for example - would he now be at the level he is now if he stayed on Millenium? No way in hell.
You can't just expect awesome players to show up in amateur and semi-pro teams. You can get a few talents, sure, but if they can't get on a professionally ran team with good contracts and salaries, they're never going to become top players. Disregarding all other factors, if you're not financially secure (which in most teams you won't be) you won't really be able to commit to Starcraft and nothing else in life, and if you don't commit to the game like that, you'll never be a "Jaydong".
|
On February 24 2011 07:51 sixfour wrote:
Personally I don't see the problem with limiting it to 5 per team. Similar things happen all the time: WCG has only ever allowed three Koreans, going outside of esports, the Olympics only allow three per country in most things, if that (was watching some track cycling this weekend and it's kind of LOL that the UK has two sprinters with genuine medal chances but can only take one to 2012). So the sixth best guy on EG can't play? Big deal.
WCG is a world cup, and they send a certain ammount of players per country, depending on how much that country's national WCG commitee wants to send, and within reason (since it s a world cup, with a fixed schedule, and offline, you cant have 100+ players)
However there is no limitation as to how many players a Clan can send, at some WCG you had more than 3 players from ToT or MYM (just an example). And if a team was super big and skilled there would be no issue with WCG if all the players of a given game were from the same team.
This would more relate to the question of how many europeans/koreans are allowed rather than which teams sends which player.
WCG is a teamcompetition (national delegations) with several disciplines, it is not a real individual league.
Think of it that way, what would you say if the GSL were to put a new rule : only 3 players per team are allowed, wouldnt you criticize that move?
|
As an aside, will this still be a big deal if there are another couple player leagues that NA/EU players can easily join (which don't, necessarily, have the limit and pay a reasonable amount) and can play in both?
|
Ok so i also don't understand the decision behind this rule, if they want the 50 best players then invite them, however with this limit based on teams it is possible (although highly unlikely) that a top player like Idra or Jinro could be sat out of this league due to the number of team mates that they have in the tournament. If that is the case then how can they even consider marketing it as the top 50 get invites. I could see the limit if it was a team league, or it they were marketing it as the best teams in the world but they are not, they are marketing the best players in the world and that could end up not being the case due to this rule
|
Don't most professional sports have a limit to how many people can be on one team? They certainly limit the amount of players can participate at once.
|
On February 24 2011 08:05 Zim23 wrote:
Let me gather this up a little. Tyler argued that early round team kills was good entertainment and better drama, and I'm of the opinion that team kills suck. I hate seeing them, especially in early rounds. I never enjoy seeing my favorite team getting 3 or 4 members in the same group. I would rather see a solution like the NASL is implementing, where teams themselves decide who to send based on team ladder or whatever metric they choose. Is that the best solution? Absolutely not, I would rather see all good players participate regardless of their team, and ALSO a way to avoid team kills in the early rounds. It's just my opinion that I would rather see the 5 player cap than see early team kills.
I think that sums it up better.
The way I see it, the teams wouldn't be the ones deciding which players they send. They would try to sign up as many people as possible, and it would be up to NASL to decide if even 5 of those players are in the top 50. Making it like "Team X gets 5 spots, who do you want to send?" if they don't have 5 players that should be in top 50 sounds like a bad way of doing it.
Maybe in the case of a few teams the ball would get thrown back to the team with a comment from NASL "We think these 6 players have enough skill to be in top 50, but you can only choose 5. These 3-4 do we think are the strongest that really should be in, but for the 5th spot it's too close for us to decide which is the better player, it's up to you".
|
Wasn't one of incontrol's arguments against extended series that "nobody but MLG does extended series... there's a reason for that". How does he resolve this obvious inconsistency in logic with respect to max 5 players per team, as this is an even more egregious error in rules (i.e., at least extended series lets the two players play each other to determine a winner, max 5 players explicitly precludes some players from even being able to play).
|
Here is my thoughts about this. If we step back and see this league as an opportunity to grow Esports in North America or in general then where do we start. I believe that Teams are what make Esports successful. If the NASL is seen as the best league or pro league whatever then teams will want to send players to this tournament and sponsors will want to sponsor teams who have players in this tournament. If more teams get sponsors then eventually we will have a thriving Competitive Esports scene with SC2 with many teams involved not just the 2 american teams that get all the sponsors and can afford to send there players to tournaments. And this just doesnt help NASL, it helps all SC2 tournaments/leagues. "More teams, more sponsors, more players" <-thats the goal
|
I think something important to consider for everyone using examples about the Brood War scene is that the Koreans already have a mechanism to restrict the amount of players eligible to play/qualify for individual leagues, Courage, and it's pretty much analogous to having to qualify via a 1000-man Open tournament. Of course, after you pass that qualifier, you're free to participate in all the leagues without arbitrary restriction by team.
I don't think that invalidates anything that's been said but it is something to keep in mind. One of the side-effects of the team requirement for invitations is that it will serve the role in the emerging North American scene that requiring a progaming license has for the Korean Brood War players, which is limiting the supply of truly professional players into a cartel of the most elite teams. To be fair, this is the exact same thing that happens at the professional level of nearly every team sport.
If having a cartel of stable, well-funded teams is something that people involved with the NASL see as a good thing, then they might fear that if the only limit to invitations is team affiliation that two or three 'superteams' will come to dominate the league, thus cutting off the marginal teams. So, the team-limit rule is a way to prevent predatory behavior between cartel members.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the mindset of the NASL creators was malicious creation of haves and have-nots based on team affiliation, but it does seem that it is one of the major side effects of the tournament structure assuming this becomes the major focal point of North American professional competition. However, the oligopoly structure that works in many professional sports is generally much more successful in pure team environments (the NFL and MLB come to mind). Even within the cartel structure of Kespa, they leave the individual leagues open to anyone who is already a member of the cartel. So despite being anti-competitive (in the economic sense), they still manage to maintain a very high level of competition (in the esports sense).
|
On February 24 2011 08:10 Gonzodamus wrote:
Don't most professional sports have a limit to how many people can be on one team? They certainly limit the amount of players can participate at once.
Those are all team leagues...this is an individual tournament.
|
Well there is a Limit of 50 Players, without the 5 Player rule it may look like this:
Team A with 10 Players
Team B with 9 Players
Team C with 7 Players
Team D with 7 Players
Team E with 6 Players
Team F with 4 Players
Team G with 4 Players
Team H with 2 Players
Team I with 1 Player
50 Players overall.
Now there are some Issues:
1) There could be Team Tactics like the Team with more player could make an abusive strategy to sniper other players or to just manipulate the bracket ...
2) A new Jaedong from Hwaseung OZ who only wants to play on Hwaseung OZ has a very hard time to join the League if Hwaseung OZ aren't already in the League. If he don't change the team he has to go trough the 1000man Tournament...
How will you fix those issues without a 5 Player per team rule?
But by reading this thread you guys are right, a 5 Player per Team rule brings other Problems with it...
|
|
|
This being only my second post I'm probably gonna get flamed for this.... However,
I don't understand the big stink with the team size arguement. As far as team liquid is concerned I can only see this affecting 2 people... and 3 team liquid players seem to be in Korea. Maybe those 3 should not play as the lag from playing on a NA server from Korea would be stupid. EDIT: well... maybe HayprO can play, but after today I'm pretty sure NASL is the last thing on his mind.
Maybe ROOT would have a problem? But once again they have 7 "top players" and I honestly cannot call minigun or ddoro elite tier players. If you wanted elite people, then i'm sorry some of your teammates aint gonna make it. Quit bitching. There are WAY too many good players to worry about 5 people per team. I imagine some teams will only bring 1 person. It's 50 people over 3 continents... get a grip. This is a non-issue that you're making an issue to support your teammates.
Awesome... you got your team's back... now let the tourney go on and if some doucher happens to make it in that some teammate of yours KNOWS 100% that he could beat well then bring that issue up for Round 2 of this thing. Otherwise... find something better to whine about...
User was warned for this post. This is a normal discussion don't call reasonable arguments out for whining.
|
To play Devils advocate here for a second: There seems to be a lot of opinions that every team in SC2 can front a 5 man team with each player capable of taking the NASL. I disagree with this. Liquid is more the exception rather than the rule. If we want, lets go through all the players of the bigger teams out there that could realistically be considered "the best" and be favored to win the NASL.
Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
EG: Demuslim, Idra
EG only has 2 players who could legitimately be a threat at the start of the tournament that could be favored to win it all. Way below the 5 man limit.
Mouz: Morrow, Naama, Mana, Strelok
Again, these are the only players on Mouz i see being legitimate threats at winning the whole thing. Still below the 5 man limit.
Root: QXC, Kiwikaki, Minigun
Only ones that have shown capable of really competing and winning big tournaments. Still below the 5 man limit.
Dignitas: Select, Sjow, Naniwa
Again, we're talking about the "best" players. Still under the 5-man limit.
fnatic: Sen, Fenix
I could go on.
The amount of realistic competition from each team does not reach the 5 player limit, other than team Liquid. Seeing this 5 man rule as an anti-Liquid rule is being judgmental without foresight or a bias against the creators of the NASL. Liquid has just as much of a chance, if not more, to win this thing than any other team.
The 5 man limit does have it's drawbacks. Limiting expansion of teams such as Liquid is a problem. Although more parity in eSports could be good for the community as a whole rather than having one powerhouse team with all the money and talent.
Think of it this way using this analogy to real sports: The New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, the Philidelphia Phillies and the LA Dodgers are the richest teams in baseball, in money and in history. They can literally throw money willy nilly and get pretty much any player they want. This creates powerhouse clubs in the MLB with little parity and expected winners out of maybe 3-4 teams in the league.
In comparison, the NHL has a salary cap, which withholds the amount of money you can spend on your teams salary. This creates more parity throughout the league and allows for teams with less of a budget to be just as competitive as teams with larger ones in larger markets.
I think of a team like Liquid as the Yankees of the SC2. A powerhouse with the best players who could all conceivably win a tournament on their own. And I think of this 5-man limit as a salary cap. It creates more competition throughout the league and in more competition comes more excitement. If EG or Liquid could sign say, some players from other teams like Sen, or Sjow, or Naniwa, or what have you, then it would be unfair to the other, "lower" teams like VT, or Root, or vVv or any others.
Tyler brings up good points though and should definitely be looked at in all seriousness. I feel that the guys behind NASL are different than the ones from MLG or GOM in that they are already infused with the community and understand that criticism will come and react accordingly. To make a huge deal and call the NASL an "embarassment" or a "worthless organization" is jumping the gun and a huge lack of vision in the big picture.
Just my 2 cents.
|
2 things I don't get... First off collusion can never really be eliminated, so why bother putting rules in place that can get in the way of having a more talented pool of players? If there was some end all be all solution that would make it so collusion was never a possible factor then, sure I might see why. But that it's done to prevent some instances where it's possible I feel like the guy in charge is trying too hard to cover his own ass.
Second what stops players on TL from making an offshoot team, that has no real bearing on anything outside the NASL, comprised of players on TL that still want a shot in this league? You stir up some forum drama about X players not being content and then leaving (details never disclosed because of the terms of their contracts and possibility of lawsuits). Now there is Team Solid comprised of X many TL members that makes it qualified to be a team to the NASL members and they just happened to be sponsored by the little app factory as well. What a coincidence.
The real flaw is that teams would have to go to such lengths to get their players into the event. I really think any event that makes players jump through hoops in order to get into events, is doing itself a disservice. You should welcome the talent from where ever it may come from and let the matches decide what's going on. Weakening the player pool to try and avoid some drama isn't going to do much when the games still have to be good in order to make the viewers happy
I really think it's sad when a lone player has to get on or off a team to try and get into a single event. If you simply have players on the same team in the same pool play each other first round there is no chance for collusion unless there is some kind of tie break between them. Which is going to be really susceptible to collusion itself, but when the outcome only matters between those players then who really cares? I didn't read any of the responses so someone probably mentioned that many times already... But if I can come up with something like that in the time it took me to write this, how long could it take to come up with a better rule?
|
@ScarletKnight
You are absolutely right!!!
The 5 Player per Team Rule is a compromise, nothing more, nothing less.
|
If the goal of NASL was to spotlight the best team, this rule would sort of make sense, but even if they came out and said that was their goal, the rest of the tournament isn't formatted in a way that supports that. It's still a 1v1 tournament with each player locked into their spot.
I understand that it sucks for the teammates that have to verse each other in the first few matches or something, but like others have said, that makes for awesome drama.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
