|
On February 24 2011 08:16 Motion wrote:
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...
since this is an individual tournament, how about you disregard the tag from Team A through I and look at the players only?
1) snipe other players... LOL... that's just too funny. This isn't proleague when you can snipe a player. They'll want to win no matter who they play.
2) Again, the invite method is flawed. Make the players go through the qualifiers. Works for GSL doesn't it? So simple yet so logical.
|
I say we get the best 50 players out there period end of story. If you are worried about cheating then have really strict penalties for players and teams caught cheating. I think you add a greater protection against cheating if you penalize the team too because now not only is he looked down upon for cheating by the community his team wont be too happy with him either.
|
On February 24 2011 08:22 Toriko wrote:
1) snipe other players... LOL... that's just too funny. This is proleague when you can snipe a player. They'll want to win no matter who they play.
.
Thx for the "LOL" ...
But guess what Nazgul did in MLG? The Hole TL Team prepared to Sniper Idra ...
So guess what a 10 player team could prepare ...
|
I was actually planning to make a blog-post, since (and it seems many people feel this way) I feel that this rule is absolutely not a good thing, and I think it's actually worth gathering up people, and gathering opinions on this to make the NASL reconsider this rule.
And all other implications aside (wich have been excellently explained by Tyler and other people), I just think that it's just not a good thing for the NASL to basicly control the American (and the eu-scene) in this way with this rule.
They have a vision for how their league should look, how many players, and so on, and they are basicly bending the current state of the teams to hopefully shape in such a way that this fits in their scheme.
And I just don't feel good that one (big) league just has such a control over how teams should look, how they should recruit and what players to bring.
All in all, this rule gives some very small benefits (giving a win to a teammate, not playing a teammate), but even those are debatable, such as it's probably much better for the other guys in a team to actually be able to participate instead of just sitting on the benches waiting for a mlg or to change to another team.
Or what are you gonna do when for example the 6th teamliquid guy actually qualify's for the open spot? Not let him join then, because the fact that he is now in there goes against what your rule is actually trying to achieve.
Anyway, I just don't see this end well.
I could keep tying and typing about all the negative side-effects off it, but I guess a lot has been said on this subject, I just wanted to show that there are a lot of people who agree that this is a bad rule.
In the end I feel, if you are gonna do an individual league, get the best 50 players, if you wanna make this about teams, then do a teamleague.
But all these constrictions on what a team should or shouldn't be is just wrong, and I don't see it end up well for some people/teams.
|
I feel that because they haven't restricted players to having to be in NA to play in this league, we should look at how this 5/team rule may help them. What if all the existing sc2 korean teams had 5+ players in the league....would that be really representative of NA, or woould you even want to watch that much lag?. I dont think they should restrict it to # people per team but I think the rule should restrict the amount of non-NA players/team (if they were to keep the rule of restricting teams).
I think the bigger problem is restricting players to have to be on a team, rather than restricting the # of players per team.
|
On February 24 2011 08:15 Byzantium wrote:
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).
The thing is with a comparison to Courage, it's not a 1000 man open and nothing suggests theres really good amateurs who are better than B-teamers being stopped by Courage. If you're just plain good enough even you don't need to win courage, you can get a license anyway.
Now compare to North America where you have tons of players potentially being left out right now because of not being on teams. There's lots of great players who have not even had the opportunity to do so. If this was an open instead of a mostly-invitational i bet you'd see tons of upsets; the skill gap between the top and the rest isn't as big anymore.
|
On February 24 2011 08:21 Motion wrote:
@ScarletKnight
You are absolutely right!!!
The 5 Player per Team Rule is a compromise, nothing more, nothing less.
Why should a player on a team compromise his place?
|
But guess what Nazgul did in MLG? The Hole TL Team prepared to Sniper Idra ...
So guess what a 10 player team could prepare ...
So he lost 1v1 in an INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENT? Who cares if the team prepared for him. Part of it was out of respect, but the other part was.... wait for it.... Nazgul wanted to WIN his INDIVIDUAL MATCH.
|
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote:
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.
Be that as it may, the spot that Haypro would get would eventually go to a player on a semi-pro team that's leagues worse than Haypro, and if Haypro doesn't seem to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber, a player who gets "his" spot would have much less of a chance to even get out of his online division. So you automatically substitute a better player with a worse one.
I suppose my point is that while Haypro isn't as impressive as other TL members, or maybe even as many players from other teams, he will still be a Bonjwa compared to some of the players that will inevitably get an NASL spot if you enforce the limit.
As for parity between teams and salary cap analogies, you can't really force it in the current situation. You will just make it harder for the extra players on good teams, even though their talent itself should earn them a spot in the league.
Starcraft 2 scene being as frail as it is, we shouldn't be trying to limit powerhouses like TL in any way, but to encourage their further growth because they offer their players the best working conditions a professional player can get outside of Korea. They make it possible for the players become the top players in the world (see oGs partnership and Jinro for results). You can't just tell a 6th TL guy to leave TL for another team so he could compete, it would be a massive step back in his career either way.
Again, Starcraft in the west isn't really about teams at all, it's about PLAYERS. What's the point in making life difficult for some of the best players we have on the scene? Seems like a waste to me.
|
I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned here yet, but it's likely that the NASL will not always be using the Blizzard ladder maps, in which case a player would need a team (or at least a set of practice partners functioning as a team) in order to prepare adequately for the tournament.
That doesn't justify at 5 people per team limitation, but it gives some backing to the notion that you need to be on a team to compete.
|
Your argument makes sense. I just think it's weird to introduce something completely foreign to such a huge tournament. We never saw something like this in bw. Kinda makes me think of inexperienced people... but then I know Xeris is involved here...
On the other hand... who has more than 5 really class players? liquid and that's it isn't it? (eg doesn't count since it's their deal almost ) And not counting nazgul you have 6? Any chance one of you isn't gonna participate anyways?
|
On February 24 2011 08:25 Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 08:22 Toriko wrote:
1) snipe other players... LOL... that's just too funny. This is proleague when you can snipe a player. They'll want to win no matter who they play.
. Thx for the "LOL" ... But guess what Nazgul did in MLG? The Hole TL Team prepared to Sniper Idra ... So guess what a 10 player team could prepare ...
Nothing wrong with team's creating strategies to exploit a flaw in a strong opponent's game. That's why progamers mix up their strategies so that they're not always predictable. Even making strategies to take out a certain player doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work.
|
On February 24 2011 08:25 Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 08:22 Toriko wrote:
1) snipe other players... LOL... that's just too funny. This is proleague when you can snipe a player. They'll want to win no matter who they play.
. Thx for the "LOL" ... But guess what Nazgul did in MLG? The Hole TL Team prepared to Sniper Idra ... So guess what a 10 player team could prepare ...
Hold on, so Nazgul beat Idra in a BO3, and your problem with that is... ?
|
On February 24 2011 08:25 Motion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 08:22 Toriko wrote:
1) snipe other players... LOL... that's just too funny. This is proleague when you can snipe a player. They'll want to win no matter who they play.
. Thx for the "LOL" ... But guess what Nazgul did in MLG? The Hole TL Team prepared to Sniper Idra ... So guess what a 10 Player team could prepare ...
That's different. First, it was Idra's fault for not being ready when the same strategy was used 3 times in a row. And you can do that without being on the same team. Idra and Ret can talk strategies if they want, they have the right to do that. What we want to prevent, is a teammate purposely losing to another teammate. That's where the harsh punishments come in, like I said in a previous post
|
Again, Starcraft in the west isn't really about teams at all, it's about PLAYERS. What's the point in making life difficult for some of the best players we have on the scene?
I really think Team EG had too much influence on this via inControl and these rules are a reaction directly to two things: Idra sniped by Nazgul at MLG and Machine vs inControl in early rounds early in MLG multiple times...
I love that: Starcraft in the west isn't really about teams at all, it's about PLAYERS. good comment.
The flip side is that better plays are better because they are on teams.
But back to the point:
NASL is an INDIVIDUAL LEAGUE, not a TEAM LEAGUE. Just look at Marine King Prime's (aka boxer aka foxer) story. He qualified through GSL as an INDIVIDUAL in an INDIVIDUAL LEAGUE and got onto a better team that way...
|
By the way this is a serious question. Please somebody involved with NASL tell me, who came up with this team restriction idea?
Seriously, if a player like InControl can't even qualify to TSL3, why would he be invited to compete in the NASL, who supposedly wants the best players in it (big LOL). Just because he has EG next to his name?
It just doesn't make any sense. No matter how you look at it or what argument they have, it simply makes zero sense.
User was warned for this post
|
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.
Three points:
1. You'd probably see mostly really high quality players who we'd want in the NASL anyway make that sort of move (e.g. WhiteRa or any of your examples).
2. If we lift the 5-max rule, how many players do we actually think will be in the NASL without a team for a significant period of time? 5? I suspect the number would be really low.
3. Just to be clear, this is an argument against keeping the 5-max rule, since all of the NASL's concerns about making sure people are on teams would be mitigated by the fact that teams will want to be pick up people selected for the NASL.
|
Requiring that a person to be in a team damages the game in the long run as it forcees a large number of teams that are unsustainable in the long term as the number of sponsers is split over a large number of parties. Some people have been saying that it acts to restrain big teams from dominating the tournement, I think this shows how far off topic they have gone this is an INDIVIDUAL torunement NOT a team tournement (like baseball, basketball) the fact that any one individiual is part of a team or not part of a team should not really impact on whether they as an individual do well.
Furthermore as it stands players that are worhty of entry will be prevented from doing so either because they do not have a team or they are on a team (the majority of economically viable teams have more than 5 players)
Additionally as Nazgual says above wat constitutes a team that has not been defined this is clear in other sports but is not clear as of yet in starcraft 2 in the west for example can i as an individual make a team of one (i.e. the team of me sponserred by me) or do i require a set amount of players, a sponser or do i have to have been around in this organisation for a set amount of time.
Finally as this is open only to teams and due to the teams limitatioon it will bne a closed system where teams will always send out their best 5 players and not give the other players on the team who may have genuie potential (but lack televised wins play) a good example of this is Jinro before he actually qualified for GSL and did really well he was just seen by many people as the teammate of TLO and friend of TLO etc now he is recongnised as one of the best terrans in the world this potentially would not have happened under the systemm that has been laid out by the NSAL
TL:DR, The team rule will reduce the ecconomic viability of sc2 in NA, wat consitutes a team and will smother rising talent while entrenching established talent at the top.
|
Aside from all the great arguments about being an individual league and limiting talent, I'd like to address the reason NASL gave for having the team rule: prevention of collusion.
I think this is a two part reason; one being the idea teammates will collude to post better results, the second being good teams will "crowd out" the bracket.
For the first rule, in elimination brackets the act of teammates colluding and throwing games so one player will get a better standing is in essence a team management decision, where the team has decided the winning player is the better player on the team. This kind of team management decision has been exemplified by the team rule supporters as a good byproduct, but only if the acts themselves took place behind closed doors. Additionally the concept of throwing a game to get a better teammate into the next round is counter intuitive, if the teammate really was better then there would be no need to throw the game. In group play the size of the group deters this type of collusion, if one teammate throws a game, that means 1 out of 9 games was won unfairly but that 1 game doesn't guarantee the teammate will get out of the group rounds. Collusion also is not limited to teammates and the true deterrent is an active oversight group that exposes and punishes occurrences harshly.
The second reason is "crowding out" a tournament. It is conceivable for a team to have a large portion of the talent in the community, but this is an individual tournament where only individual results matter. Also having a large and strong team makes the competition more exciting by giving other teams a large group to face. The real way to deter clumping of talent is to create a team league that gives incentive for teams to break up and compete with each other.
In an individual tournament the effects of a team are minuscule and rules based around teams are illogical.
|
It should be the best 50 they can get regardless of their team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
