It's September 21, 2011. The 49-96 Houston Astros are in Cincinnati, Ohio to play the 76-80 Reds. Both teams below the .500 mark, the game has no meaning whatsoever -- not for the Astros, not for the Reds, not for any other team in the division (NL Central).
As bad as the Astros were that season, they did have what could be deemed an A-lineup, a lineup consisting of their best players at each position. That was not the lineup they used on this Wednesday afternoon.
A typical full-time Major League hitter accrues in excess of 600 plate appearances in a single season. Here is a look at the lineup the Astros used along with each player's PA total:
Jordan Schafer, CF (118 PA) J.B. Shuck, RF (92 PA) J.D. Martinez, LF (226 PA) Carlos Lee, 1B (653 PA) Matt Downs, 2B (222 PA) Chris Johnson, 3B (405 PA) Clint Barmes, SS (495 PA) J.R. Towles, C (165 PA) Pitcher (pitchers get significantly fewer PA than position players, so this is irrelevant)
The average hitter in the lineup had about 300 PA, or half that of a full-time player. Needless to say, the Astros were intentionally putting out a sub-par lineup.
To prove that, let's look at their offensive production using a statistic called weighted on-base average (wOBA). The league average is between .310-.320.
Only two Astros made it above the .320 threshold. It is safe to say that the Astros were, uh, not trying their hardest to win that afternoon's game.
I bring this up because a controversy arose earlier after both Naniwa and Nestea went 0-3 in their group in the Blizzard Cup. With eight of ten matches already completed, the fates of both players were sealed, making their match-up in Game #9 meaningless. Naniwa chose, instead of playing out an irrelevant game, to rush with his six starting workers across the map of Antiga Shipyard towards Nestea's base. Needless to say, the probe rush did not succeed; Naniwa dropped to 0-4 while Nestea erased the goose egg in his wins column.
Quickly after the game, TL and Reddit were on fire with complaints from community members, claiming that Naniwa's behavior was immature and disrespectful. Some called for punishment to be levied from GOM; others angrily sent emails to Naniwa's new team, Quantic Gaming.
I seem to be in the minority thinking that Naniwa did nothing wrong, just as the Astros above did nothing wrong by putting out their "B-lineup" several months ago in the final weeks of the baseball season.
First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies?
We need to have lines here, and they cannot be drawn arbitrarily. More importantly, they should be drawn officially. I don't see anywhere on the GOM website where they have official rules for their tournaments, but something like that should be addressed in written word. Such ruling does not exist in most (if not all) professional sports; teams are allowed to tank on purpose. This is especially prevalent in the NBA, when teams will intentionally lose to increase the probability that they get a good draft pick in the lottery. It happens in the NFL as well. In fact, the phrase "suck for Luck" refers to teams taking a dive every week so they are better suited to draft college quarterback Andrew Luck, currently at Stanford University.
A common refrain I've read is that Naniwa owes it to GOM, the sponsors, his team, the fans, etc. to play out the meaningless game. And that is just flat-out wrong. Naniwa's job is to win games -- that is, win games that matter. Winning that game against Nestea would not have done anything for Naniwa except earn a couple brownie points (in other words, nothing). And if it's not against official rules and the terms of his contract with Quantic Gaming, then again, he did nothing wrong. Likewise, fans who showed up to that Astros-Reds game on September 21 were not owed their money back. The sponsors were not refunded ad revenue, either (as some have suggested be done with GOM). That is the risk you take as a fan when you purchase tickets, and that is the risk you take as a business when you choose to advertise. Ultimately, if the fans and/or the sponsors do have a legitimate gripe about what happened, that is to be taken up with GOM, not Naniwa.
As a fan, you can hate Naniwa for whatever reasons you want, legitimate or not. When we're dealing with a player's livelihood, however, we need to have rational, adult conversations, and I'm just not seeing any of that in the community. When you calm down, take a step back and examine the situation, you should see that Naniwa is taking entirely too much grief for what was ultimately a decision made in his best interest.
So let's say a team goes 0-X or just has a bad record. They're gonna play the last game of the season with 0 chance to make it in the playoffs. What do they do? They shit on everyone around them by fucking around. Let's say it was football. The other team's running back gets through and no one chases after him, no one does anything to even try to save a bit of their dignity and give fans who payed and stayed loyal a show or at least some sign of trying. Who would defend that as a fan?
This isn't gstl, you're playing for your own benefits. The coach put the players out as well, coach had no say in Naniwa's case. It just happened.
First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
I guess consolation rounds in every individual tournament are just shameful then. Or finishing a race when you know you haven't won. Even if you prepared for years. Do we know for a fact that Naniwa requested a forfeit? Or is this an assumption?
Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies?
It's the fastest way to get out of the game. Not necessarily lowest percentage. The 0% chance would be to kill your probes then attack, or kill your nexus. Both take longer than rushing cross map into nestea's base and losing all your probes.
You didn't mention his image. He really just hurt himself by doing this, gaining lots of anti-fans apparently. Though obviously there's no penalty for that. I'd have to say reprimanding is necessary but not a fine or a ban. It's BM, definitely, and maybe if GOM were actually KESPA we wouldn't see Naniwa in Korea again, but it's not. And Mr Chae loves foreigners.
I like your rational approach to the thing as a whole though, much better than "let's lynch naniwa bandwagon"
Well, there's certainly been plenty of precedence for a hopeless team/player to go either way (all out, or give up), it's only up to the players' selves. Naniwa probably lost some fans doing that, but it was his choice to make, and that's who he is.
In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
I guess consolation rounds in every individual tournament are just shameful then. Or finishing a race when you know you haven't won. Even if you prepared for years. Do we know for a fact that Naniwa requested a forfeit? Or is this an assumption?
To be fair, players routinely forfeited final placement matches at MLG. Those are never televised, so the NaNiwa situation is a bit different, but players forfeiting and not wanting to play pointless matches is not new. The manner in which it was performed here was new, though.
There are more factors in real sports than Starcraft. When an unimportant game is coming up you use that game to field inexperienced player, to test them and let the gain some match experience. You don't use all your best players to rest them and to not risk injury for nothing. While the internet certainly is flipping its shit over nothing, these are not comparable situations.
So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
An interesting addendum I just thought of: In baseball, weather can sometimes interfere with a game, causing it to be rescheduled. Sometimes, the game will just be pushed to the end of the season. If the game actually means anything with regard to the playoff race, then the two teams will make up the game; if not, the game is discarded. This happened to the Phillies in 2002. A typical regular season spans 162 games, but the Phillies went 80-81 for a total of 161.
The Phillies owe their season ticket holders their money back! (jk :-P)
On December 13 2011 22:28 Crais wrote: In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
EPL actually has a rule that says you must field a full strength side or something tho, unlike american sports
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
I really don't see any validity to the comparison you chose at all. Naniwa punted a game in an invitational tournament that was supposed to showcase the top talent of SC2 from the year. It was cowardly and childish at best.
It's even borderline hypocritical to see someone who constantly says they care about nothing other than winning to purposely lose a game like that.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
People on here are beyond hypocritical, its nothing new, the same people who praise idra for doing the exact same thing in a game that actually matters are the people calling for naniwas head. I just hope like you said Gom takes a rational approach and looks at what happened objectively and sees naniwa did absolutely nothing wrong or punishable, they will set a bad precedent where any strategy can be deemed punishable if they do anything to naniwa.
Great blog! I do disagree personally as a fan. I like to think the players are having fun and trying to show good games for their fans. Naniwa was on a big stage vs a SC2 giant, and his fans wanted to see him win. Of course Naniwa was frustrated by the earlier losses and the fact that even if he beats Nestea it wouldn't mean much.
But every foreigner vs korean game has meaning beyond the game. For example, think about 2 teams that are historic rivals, when they play their fans expect a hard fought game regardless of the big picture. + Show Spoiler +
I can't imagine the New York Giants ever taking a football game against the Cowboys lightly, even if the season was already over. I even remember specific games that showed the opposite. Can you imagine a Monday night game between these teams where they sat most of their starters? And football players risk injury, which rarely affects a SC2 game.
Nestea was expected to do his best to hold up the pride of Korean progamers, and likewise there was pressure on Naniwa to prove the legitimacy of the European scene.
After reading your article I am forced to agree that this isn't that big a deal, but I still think it is totally understandable that Naniwa lost some fans today. Still, thank you for writing this. I bookmarked your site, and will try to read more of your stuff later.
There's a difference between throwing a game intentionally and putting on your B-lineup (many times, teams will do this to give their bench experience).
There's many tournaments where you might end up having to play a meaningless game, the World Cup comes to mind, do you think a team that's 0-2 will just lose intentionally? You think they'll score own-goals intentionally? No, it's a matter of principles. Obviously you're not going to be playing as hard, but you should still play to win.
Though I admit, in the sporting world, you still have financials gains for a win, even if it doesn't mean anything. So maybe next time, GOM should pay people for a win, like $1000 or $500. I think that would make a lot of sense.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
On December 13 2011 22:19 Itsmedudeman wrote: So let's say a team goes 0-X or just has a bad record. They're gonna play the last game of the season with 0 chance to make it in the playoffs. What do they do? They shit on everyone around them by fucking around. Let's say it was football. The other team's running back gets through and no one chases after him, no one does anything to even try to save a bit of their dignity and give fans who payed and stayed loyal a show or at least some sign of trying. Who would defend that as a fan?
Calm down dude, Naniwa did what was in his best interest: not showing his strategy against NesTea on that map.
Moreover, he didn't waste the viewers time with a meaningless game. I appreciated it.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that.
For fucks sake guys, just compare naniwa to Bobby Fisher, he was a fucking douche and did shit like this all the time but people didn't hate all over him.
I totally agree with this. GomTV should make sure to produce a seious game format instead. Most of the fault lies with them and I can see why Naniwa didnt play that game. Either you reveal one of the strats you could use in Code-S and win or you play a b game and lose which will make you look bad as well.
The problem with the OP's analogy to Astros/Reds game is that the B Team STILL PLAYED THEIR HARDEST AND TRIED TO WIN!! They didn't go out there and just let the Reds wins. And enough with the whole "herp derp, teams tanks games on purpose to get better draft picks" Do you really think coaches and players tank games when so many of them depend on performing well to get paid, specially the coaches? As a writer for ESPN you should be the last one perpetuating that myth cause thats what is, a myth.
I think there are some subtle differences though that do mount up to a significant difference.
In any team sport, when you're tanking games, you're at least giving your B-teamers and rookies the opportunity to get valuable game time.
Probe rush is a non-zero % win rate strategy, and neither is fielding a team of triple A players. However, probe is as close to Zero you can get without attacking your own units, while fielding minor league players in a baseball game surely gives you a higher possibility of victory.
ESPORTS is not in the position of established professional sports. Those have such a strong base in terms of fans, reputation, marketing, cultural significance etc. that players actually can focus on just winning championships, and do nothing else. ESPORTS is a long way from that position, and you can argue that professional gamers are somewhat obliged to give tournament organizers and pro-game teams (who are doing all of the marketing and promotion) at least something to work on.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that.
how can you say this? of course he wanted to lose, he did a worker rush which can't really win VS a professional player.
if that's not wanting to lose then I don't know what it is
I completely agree with your piece of text. Naniwa is childish but he did nothing wrong. It was gom's mistake to make them play a meaningless game "for the viewers." As a viewer, I personally don't care about meaningless games, only the competition.
+1 to this, its actually been thought out and reasoned. i personally see it as Unprofessional, but not anywhere near as bad as what people have made it out to be.
I mean really, it was probably the most memorable game of the night, right?
You say Naniwas only goal as a progamer is to win games. I disagree. Especially in Korea you cant pull this shit and act respectless. It may be a cultural thing, but when you chose to go to korea, you better behave appropriate. No korean progamer would do stuff like that. He would embaress his team, his coach, his teammates, his parents and himself. Even outside of korea this game can only be described as a waste of time.
You made the comparison to real sports and if I try to think of any european soccer team (havin no more chance to win the league they are in) that enters the field and just refuses to play (which is exactly what naniwa did) would be in serious trouble. The team Management would make every player pay huge sums of money as a contractual penalty. Probably the League itself would punish the Club as well.
In the end it is pretty simple. If you choose to become a professional player - just fucking play the game, even when you`re in a mentaly difficult position. It is not only your job to advance in tournaments, entertaining the crowd (by showing good games) is similar important.
On December 13 2011 22:28 Crais wrote: In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
EPL actually has a rule that says you must field a full strength side or something tho, unlike american sports
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that.
how can you say this? of course he wanted to lose, he did a worker rush which can't really win VS a professional player.
if that's not wanting to lose then I don't know what it is
No he wanted to play a short game, you dont know is he wanted to lose.
"@LorangerChris Stephano 6pooled cloud twice in a row when he was 0-3 in a game that actually mattered. Nobody gave a shit. Haters gonna hate"
were you as upset when this happened in a game that actually mattered?
Koreans and Foreigners just have a fundamentally different way of perceiving the games that they play that becomes obvious if you listen any interviews of Korean players. The foreigner mentality of "our job as players is only to win" is not incorrect, but it's just culturally biased. When Koreans are interviewed they always say things like "I hope to give the fans great games." Everything the Koreans do is in service to their fans and the viewers. They see themselves as "owing" their fans the best of their ability all the time.
So if someone does a strategy with such an absurdly low rate of success and an even lower rate of fan entertainment, that's obviously going to be seen as disrespectful in Korea because that runs counter to the fundamental essence of why they even play the games.
This doesn't make one view of the situation more right than any other. But, each side of this equation is free to be offended or to not be offended individually according to their own sensibilities. It's no surprise that Koreans would be upset about this or that any fans would be upset about this.
The Astros actually played a game, which is much different than what Naniwa did. He walked on the field, lazily threw the ball at the catcher, and walked off. Doing a 1 base allin is quite different than selecting 7 probes and A-moving across the map in hopes your opponent had a heart attack at the start of the game. Naniwa decided not only to throw the game, but also to rob the fans of any sort of enjoyment. I would have been happy if he had done a Carrier rush, because at least as crazy as those are they have at least won a few times.
Let's also forgive Coca and everyone else who ever dropped games intentionally.
There can be no gray area when it comes to losing intentionally, it is a very slippery slope which can lead to horrible ramifications for ALL of eSports, not just one player. This should not be tolerated, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you try to do in order to justify it.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that.
how can you say this? of course he wanted to lose, he did a worker rush which can't really win VS a professional player.
if that's not wanting to lose then I don't know what it is
No he wanted to play a short game, you dont know is he wanted to lose.
"@LorangerChris Stephano 6pooled cloud twice in a row when he was 0-3 in a game that actually mattered. Nobody gave a shit. Haters gonna hate"
were you as upset when this happened in a game that actually mattered?
please read my words
naniwa had no real chances of winning with a probe rush against a professional player like nestea. he wanted to lose, what can't you understand from that?
stephano did a strategy that while it has a low win percentage, it can certainly work. He did want a short game
On December 13 2011 22:45 aquanda wrote: The Astros actually played a game, which is much different than what Naniwa did. He walked on the field, lazily threw the ball at the catcher, and walked off. Doing a 1 base allin is quite different than selecting 7 probes and A-moving across the map in hopes your opponent had a heart attack at the start of the game. Naniwa decided not only to throw the game, but also to rob the fans of any sort of enjoyment. I would have been happy if he had done a Carrier rush, because at least as crazy as those are they have at least won a few times.
NaNiwa lazily selected his probes and A-moved them to his opponent's base, and walked off from the booth.
I'm just disappointed in his first big showing on a new team, he went 0-4 and last game just completely gave up. It really does not help Quantic's image.
On December 13 2011 22:45 aquanda wrote: The Astros actually played a game, which is much different than what Naniwa did. He walked on the field, lazily threw the ball at the catcher, and walked off. Doing a 1 base allin is quite different than selecting 7 probes and A-moving across the map in hopes your opponent had a heart attack at the start of the game. Naniwa decided not only to throw the game, but also to rob the fans of any sort of enjoyment. I would have been happy if he had done a Carrier rush, because at least as crazy as those are they have at least won a few times.
Actually, NaNiwa played the game, just like the Astros did. And he used a strategy, just like the Astros, that he know didn't have as high of a win rate as playing at full strength.
He did also not rob the fans of any sort of enjoyment. You did not enjoy what he did. He didn't take anything from you. I personally thought it was hilarious. Unprofessional? Extremely. Rude? Most likely. But he for sure did not take away anything from me, or anyone else. And as long as he didn't break any rules that GSL made him agree to, I see no problem in what he did.
Teams send their B-team in these circumstances to give them experience for the sake of team growth. Naniwa threw the match because he was upset. Even then, the B-team will try their hardest to win as unlikely as it is. A-moving with probes then going AFK is not the same thing. A more accurate comparison would be throwing the first pitch then lying there on the field.
One thing that you should remember is that sending out your B-lineup in a game like baseball, basketball, football or any other team game.. helps the team by providing your second-string players a chance to gain more experience. In a game that doesn't matter anymore, you at least want to get something out of it by giving your other players a chance to play and learn.
Its because of this that I think you can't compare a team sending out its B-lineup in a game to what NaNiwa did.
What NaNiwa did is more like.. telling all your players to go home, cause its a waste of time, and letting your team's waterboys, towelboys, cheerleaders, and what not to play the game for you.
On December 13 2011 22:45 aquanda wrote: The Astros actually played a game, which is much different than what Naniwa did. He walked on the field, lazily threw the ball at the catcher, and walked off. Doing a 1 base allin is quite different than selecting 7 probes and A-moving across the map in hopes your opponent had a heart attack at the start of the game. Naniwa decided not only to throw the game, but also to rob the fans of any sort of enjoyment. I would have been happy if he had done a Carrier rush, because at least as crazy as those are they have at least won a few times.
Actually, NaNiwa played the game, just like the Astros did. And he used a strategy, just like the Astros, that he know didn't have as high of a win rate as playing at full strength.
He did also not rob the fans of any sort of enjoyment. You did not enjoy what he did. He didn't take anything from you. I personally thought it was hilarious. Unprofessional? Extremely. Rude? Most likely. But he for sure did not take away anything from me, or anyone else. And as long as he didn't break any rules that GSL made him agree to, I see no problem in what he did.
What about people like me who payed to see some "competitive" games?
On December 13 2011 22:45 aquanda wrote: The Astros actually played a game, which is much different than what Naniwa did. He walked on the field, lazily threw the ball at the catcher, and walked off. Doing a 1 base allin is quite different than selecting 7 probes and A-moving across the map in hopes your opponent had a heart attack at the start of the game. Naniwa decided not only to throw the game, but also to rob the fans of any sort of enjoyment. I would have been happy if he had done a Carrier rush, because at least as crazy as those are they have at least won a few times.
Actually, NaNiwa played the game, just like the Astros did. And he used a strategy, just like the Astros, that he know didn't have as high of a win rate as playing at full strength.
He did also not rob the fans of any sort of enjoyment. You did not enjoy what he did. He didn't take anything from you. I personally thought it was hilarious. Unprofessional? Extremely. Rude? Most likely. But he for sure did not take away anything from me, or anyone else. And as long as he didn't break any rules that GSL made him agree to, I see no problem in what he did.
FWIW, I have similar discussions with people who are very anti-PED (performance-enhancing drugs). People have a hard time separating their personal morals from the actual rules, often conflating the two. I see a lot of that going on lately.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that.
how can you say this? of course he wanted to lose, he did a worker rush which can't really win VS a professional player.
if that's not wanting to lose then I don't know what it is
No he wanted to play a short game, you dont know is he wanted to lose.
"@LorangerChris Stephano 6pooled cloud twice in a row when he was 0-3 in a game that actually mattered. Nobody gave a shit. Haters gonna hate"
were you as upset when this happened in a game that actually mattered?
please read my words
naniwa had no real chances of winning with a probe rush against a professional player like nestea. he wanted to lose, what can't you understand from that?
stephano did a strategy that while it has a low win percentage, it can certainly work. He did want a short game
are you actually trying to defend stephano but not naniwa? 6pooling against a terran twice is just as fucking bad as worker rushing, PLUS, stephano made it so cloud almost advanced instead of someone else.
You cant defend only one of them, either you think both is wrong or that no one is wrong.
Stephano wasn't on the main stage being casted in front of thousands of fans. A 6 pool doesn't necessarily have a 0% chance to win. If they go for a 15 CC you can win. Not the same. This was an invitational and an honor to compete against the best, win or lose. Hero was down 0-3 with no chance but he played the last game.
i have no clue about baseball (because i come from europe), but in team sports, matches that doesn`t really matter occur all the time. In almost every groupstage or qualifier tournament in any football-tournament (and by football, of course i mean soccer), whether it is a club-tournament like the UEFA Champions League or nationality tournament like the FIFA World Cup qualifiers. But rarely ever will you see such a game beeing thrown away by either one of the participating teams.
Of course, its absolutely common for those matches to be played with what you can call a "b-lineup", e.g. players that are normally sitting on the bench.
But here comes my point: You cannot compare those kind of matches with what naniwa has done today.
- In every football match, as well as in other physical sport, there is always the risk of injuries. So many coaches put that risk into account, when they put their A-Lineup on the bench.
- Its a teamsport! You have group-dynamics in there. Players that rarely play will get frustrated and so on. Another reason for letting them play in matches that "doenst matter".
My point is, that a physical teamsport (like baseball) cannot be compared with a 1v1 mind-sport (like sc2).
The question is: What would have Naniwa discouraged from playing a "regular" game, e.g. trying his best to win it.
Risk of injury? No. Giving other players a chance? No. Group-Dynamics? No. Waste of his time? Okay, sure. Maybe 30minutes of his lifetime would have been wasted.
But whats on the upside?!
1. There are people out there who actually like this guy. Maybe they even payed for the HD-Pass only to watch him play. He could have entertained those guys.
2. He is on the television. The longer his face is up there and he puts up a good show, the more his reputation will rise. What this means for his team and sponsors is obvious.
3. Sportsmanship. Its just the basic principle of going into any competetive match with an adversary. You give your best, no matter what. Its called respect.
The talk about proberushing beeing a "valid strategy" with non-zero chances of winnig is ridiculous, by the way. I think you missjudged the situation.
He was just selfish in this moment. He was pissed because of his previous games and did not think a second of his obligations to other people. This is what you call unprofessionalism.
If he wanted a fast game - fine. Just do the best 4gate you can. If you lose, whatever. Everybody will be happy. You gave it a shot with a legitimate all-in tactic and it didn't work, no biggie. If you win, even better! It would have cost him 8 more minutes of lifetime, but all this shitstorm would have been avoided EASILY!
I think you are right GomTV needs to have physical rules written out if they wish to curb any type of behavior. As it stands, Naniwa hasn't violated anything. If his team Quantic has any beef with Naniwa, I'm sure they'll settle it behind the scenes.
But then again, mob mentality is extremely strong amongst masses of people. When people smell a potential crucifixion they are going to do their damndest to see it carried out.
Great write up, and I whole-heartedly agree. And to add to this, I'm actually very surprised people, who have all been watching Naniwa for months if not years now, were surprised he did something like this. He's always been like this and he's not going to change.
I'm not a Naniwa fan because of his personality (although sometimes it can be very funny imo), I'm a fan because he's an exceptional player. There are a million analogies with professional sports players that we could make that were very similar to this.
I agree that the fault is completely with the tournament structure. A BO1 Round-Robin format is terrible and says almost nothing about the skill of these players. As the writer authoring the previews for the Blizzard Cup said, you play this out 10 more times and you are likely to see 10 different results.
Totally agree with the OP. Gom has never made players play meaningless games in group stages before, ever. Why they decided to start today with naniwa is beyond me. It's silly.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote: [...] Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies? [...]
Well, that's the problem. This wasn't a worker rush. He took his probes crossmap, and on arrival didn't micro them the slightest. That "strategy" had exactly 0% chance of succeeding.
On December 13 2011 22:45 aquanda wrote: The Astros actually played a game, which is much different than what Naniwa did. He walked on the field, lazily threw the ball at the catcher, and walked off. Doing a 1 base allin is quite different than selecting 7 probes and A-moving across the map in hopes your opponent had a heart attack at the start of the game. Naniwa decided not only to throw the game, but also to rob the fans of any sort of enjoyment. I would have been happy if he had done a Carrier rush, because at least as crazy as those are they have at least won a few times.
Actually, NaNiwa played the game, just like the Astros did. And he used a strategy, just like the Astros, that he know didn't have as high of a win rate as playing at full strength.
He did also not rob the fans of any sort of enjoyment. You did not enjoy what he did. He didn't take anything from you. I personally thought it was hilarious. Unprofessional? Extremely. Rude? Most likely. But he for sure did not take away anything from me, or anyone else. And as long as he didn't break any rules that GSL made him agree to, I see no problem in what he did.
FWIW, I have similar discussions with people who are very anti-PED (performance-enhancing drugs). People have a hard time separating their personal morals from the actual rules, often conflating the two. I see a lot of that going on lately.
He didn't use any strategy, he threw his probes away, he had no intention of trying to win. He A-moved his workers, took his hands off the keyboard and let them die. Thats not a strat. He didn't micro them at all, he just basically said I want to lose and get this over with. There was no effort on his part whatsoever to win. As for your point as to whether it was against the rules of the tourney, yes I'll give you that. But I'll be willing the bet that his team will have words with him as I'm pretty sure that in his contract there are RULES regarding this kind of behavior
On December 13 2011 22:56 Newbistic wrote: I think you are right GomTV needs to have physical rules written out if they wish to curb any type of behavior. As it stands, Naniwa hasn't violated anything. If his team Quantic has any beef with Naniwa, I'm sure they'll settle it behind the scenes.
But then again, mob mentality is extremely strong amongst masses of people. When people smell a potential crucifixion they are going to do their damndest to see it carried out.
If gom would put a ban on specific builds and strategies just because they aren't fun to watch, gsl would be a joke.
Whether what he did was 'wrong' or not, I do not really care. I think he was in an extremely priveleged position many, many very good players who could have given Nestea a good game would die for, and he did not even bother to attempt to play a game for no valid reason. This and many previous events give me an extremely negative opinion on him. I do not see why anyone should sympathise with him, whether the game was 'meaningless' or not, I agree with Nazgul that it is disrespectful to everyone involved.
Something that boggles my mind, is that Korean players who always try to play entertaining games for fans, while playing to win, gain less fans than someone like him
Naniwa wouldnt even be able to bring an entertaining match. His mind was set on forfeit before the match and he forfeited. He saw that the match would not help him towards his goals in any way so he ignored the match and set his mind on the next challenge.
I'm laughing for real at all of the people who are so mad over this. It was a pointless game, a waste of the viewers time. The fact that GOM didn't strike this match from the tournament is a joke. It should never have happened.
This seems like a completely irrelevant example. The team was trying to get exposure and experience for it's players who don't get to play as much, it's pretty common for sports teams to do that. Think about who gets put in the game when a basketball team is down by 50 with 2 minutes to go...
It seems like the bigger issue here is the fact that this guy is 23(?) and he acts like a fifteen year old kid. I can possibly understand if it was somebody that Naniwa had no history with, but to probe rush somebody you have a competitive relationship and rivalry with is pretty infuriating. Essentially what Naniwa did was take the option to play the game from NesTea. If you think about it, this match isn't going to be remembered as a NesTea victory, it's going to be remembered as Naniwa being immature and throwing the game. That kind of disrespect for your opponent is messed up.
He actually just quit, he basically told NesTea that he wasn't worth his time. To hear that Nestea stayed up into the night on his birthday practicing for his match against Naniwa makes it all the more agitating. I'm tired of attention being devoted to such a big man-child. I don't want to hear his excuse, I don't want to watch his games, I don't want to have him constantly be this "controversial" topic, I just want him to either shut up completely and man up, or go away forever.
On December 13 2011 22:56 Newbistic wrote: I think you are right GomTV needs to have physical rules written out if they wish to curb any type of behavior. As it stands, Naniwa hasn't violated anything. If his team Quantic has any beef with Naniwa, I'm sure they'll settle it behind the scenes.
But then again, mob mentality is extremely strong amongst masses of people. When people smell a potential crucifixion they are going to do their damndest to see it carried out.
If gom would put a ban on specific builds and strategies just because they aren't fun to watch, gsl would be a joke.
Attack-moving with all of your workers and taking your hands off of the keyboard is hardly a strategy. It's deliberately throwing a game. It would be like calling deliberately scoring an own goal in soccer a "strategy".
I don't have an opinion on whether or not Gom actually needs rules, but in the event that they DO want to rule out this sort of behavior (i.e. deliberately throwing games), they'll need to have the rules on physical paper.
On December 13 2011 22:56 Newbistic wrote: I think you are right GomTV needs to have physical rules written out if they wish to curb any type of behavior. As it stands, Naniwa hasn't violated anything. If his team Quantic has any beef with Naniwa, I'm sure they'll settle it behind the scenes.
But then again, mob mentality is extremely strong amongst masses of people. When people smell a potential crucifixion they are going to do their damndest to see it carried out.
If gom would put a ban on specific builds and strategies just because they aren't fun to watch, gsl would be a joke.
Attack-moving with all of your workers and taking your hands off of the keyboard is hardly a strategy. It's deliberately throwing a game. It would be like calling deliberately scoring an own goal in soccer a "strategy".
I don't have an opinion on whether or not Gom actually needs rules, but in the event that they DO want to rule out this sort of behavior (i.e. deliberately throwing games), they'll need to have the rules on physical paper.
It's throwing a game that's meaningless. It's literally the same as throwing a televised practice game.
Although i would of loved to have watched the game, i do feel the onus is on Gom to not broadcast pointless matches. Naniwa doesnt deserve the shit he will get for this action... he really should think things through a bit more though.
I don't agree with the analogy. He didnt probe rush (although bad but a valid tsrategy), he took his hands off the keyboard. I guess people are over-reacting a little but as someone who stayed up late for the match, I was pretty disappointed.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that.
Hey Swede. I know this might sound crazy, but I don't think any single high-level player would agree with you that a Probe rush (a-move and then taking hands off keyboard) has any remote chance of winning against Nestea.
If we're talking in baseball analogies, what Naniwa was doing was putting 9 pitchers in the lineup and then having his batboy as the pitcher. I don't think many people would mind if he tried some wonky all in build, but to do something that lame is just beyond stupid. Again in professional sports, they take that opportunity of a failed season to get their younger players some action. You are playing against one of the best zergs in the game, why wouldn't you take that opportunity to better yourself?
I hear Naniwa say he just wants to be the best and is dedicated on doing everything it takes to do that. That one match shows that he either is full of it, or doesn't believe that every time he sits down to play a game of starcraft he can learn something or work on something from that game...and I don't think he'll ever become the best he can with that sort of attitude.
I think that perhaps Naniwa knows all too well how many elements of the Starcraft 2 community love throwing short lived and arbitrary shit fits. He knew that the name recognition for his new team would increase more if he did something never done before (cross position worker rush PvZ) than if he played a standard game at a point where the result was meaningless.
Excellent article. You summed up everything I was saying in the other threads perfectly. The typical SC2 fan knows nothing of real sports. Endlessly bringing up how in "real sports" this never happens... when in fact it has been happening for decades.
Naniwa did nothing wrong. He dose not owe a thing to anyone. Bad tournament structure, period.
it seems to me that people give a whole lot of crap about someone who obviously doesn´t care that much about them in return... he´s just a socially awkward penguin - no offense nani. its not "bad" or "good" - its just what it is, at the very least it is for me. but i guess our community likes to shit on everything that runs somewhere outside our expectations... a man i once knew, actually he was a jerk, said: lifes not a pony-ranch...
After thinking about it, the core discussion can be boiled down to the following question:
Was this match pointless to play out?
Yes-reasons: It was nothing on stake. They were both out of the tournament. The outcome didn't matter at all. The Match would have been a waste of time anyway.
Conclusion: Naniwas move was totally understandable. Arguably even hilarious.
No-reasons: It was a televised match, with thousands of people watching. There was some drama in the past between both.. The players have to deliver a good show in order to fulfill their obligations to their teams, sponsors whether anything is on the line or not. Fans were excited to see them duke it out.
Conclusion: Naniwa acted totally unprofessional. His move was not acceptable in regards of sportsmanship and respect.
I really think thats how the discussion is structured. Naniwas, as well as the OP (and Slasher) judge the match as beeing pointless, while others do not (incl. me).
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that.
Hey Swede. I know this might sound crazy, but I don't think any single high-level player would agree with you that a Probe rush (a-move and then taking hands off keyboard) has any remote chance of winning against Nestea.
You cannot prove it has a absolutely no chance of succeeding therefore it is simply a bad strategy. If Naniwa had instantly left the game or had attacked his own nexus, or had not touched his keyboard at all, or had never entered the booth then you would have an argument.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that.
Hey Swede. I know this might sound crazy, but I don't think any single high-level player would agree with you that a Probe rush (a-move and then taking hands off keyboard) has any remote chance of winning against Nestea.
Hey korean, I know this might sound crazy but I think you are making assumptions that i feel this way b/c i am a swede, which is totaly relevant to this discussion. Stop with that bullshit.
O.O my favorite sports writer for the Phillies watches Starcraft 2?!?!? OMG HOLY CRAP AWESOME~!
Though, that arbitrary line has never been needed to be established in Professional BW... Pro's took too much pride in their games... and when it was found that they were being insincere, they were permanently banned (See Match Fixing Scandal)
Though, it does bring up a good question: What is "required" of a Pro player in a serious game with tens of THOUSANDS of dollars on the line and tens of THOUSANDS of fans' hearts praying for a good game?
I mean... If Naniwa had done some insane 2 gate warp gate all in while floating 3k mins (Basically played horribly on purpose instead of simply 6 probe rushing) would we have been more or less angry?
I guess player have the right to play as badly as they want... but doing so has the obvious consequence of alienating them from their fanbase... or getting them blacklisted from tournaments.
I wonder when Tournaments are going to have the monetary stability and presence of mind to begin blacklisting players because they're simply BAD for their events?
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that.
Hey Swede. I know this might sound crazy, but I don't think any single high-level player would agree with you that a Probe rush (a-move and then taking hands off keyboard) has any remote chance of winning against Nestea.
You cannot prove it has a absolutely no chance of succeeding therefore it is simply a bad strategy. If Naniwa had instantly left the game or had attacked his own nexus, or had not touched his keyboard at all, or had never entered the booth then you would have an argument.
Um he didn't touch his keyboard....he A-moved the drones and then took his hands off the keyboard and let them die so yeah......
There's a thing called a teaching game in which the objective is to learn and grow rather than win. That' the very same reason why teams send out their B-team line-up in MLB and SC2. Naniwa's game against Nestea was driven out of anger/frustration rather than a desire to learn. You're completely missing the different intentions from the participants in your analogy.
I think you're flat out wrong and fall on your own arguments. First off, you can't really compare team sports on the complete same level given that, well, one of them consists of a lot of players and the other just you and your opponent. Furthermore; in your example the teams still plays. And that is the main gripe. They played! Naniwa could've forfeited the game, and it would be okay, but to just straight up send your workers on attack move and take your hands off the keyboard is just downright dumb.
Furthermore, GOM probably just show the rules on the website given that those websites are purely for entertainment purposes and not for the players playing it to stay up do date. They have rules, they are written, but they are most likely not on their streaming websites.
And lastly;
Likewise, fans who showed up to that Astros-Reds game on September 21 were not owed their money back. The sponsors were not refunded ad revenue, either (as some have suggested be done with GOM). That is the risk you take as a fan when you purchase tickets, and that is the risk you take as a business when you choose to advertise.
Because they fucking got to see a real game, regardless of the skills of the players, they still had a game shown to them. I don't care if you send in your b-team or c-team as long as you play the game. Why would you refund something that was played? Because the involved parties were horrible? If so I'd try to get tons of money back because of games with players I found to be horrible. No, no and no. Naniwa didn't even play a game, he rallied his workers, took his hands of his keyboard and was done with it.
Quite frankly, this post just shows lack of understanding the differences between certain things that should be obvious. I don't care if you're from ESPN, it doesn't give you any credibility whatsoever about a topic you don't understand. Even your comparison is flawed on the basic level; the game was played.
Why would Naniwa play a real game anyway? There's no way either him or Nestea would use a build they'd practiced (unless Naniwa just used the one he played against Leenock with) and give future GSL opponents another match to go through and pick apart.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote: [...] Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies? [...]
Well, that's the problem. This wasn't a worker rush. He took his probes crossmap, and on arrival didn't micro them the slightest. That "strategy" had exactly 0% chance of succeeding.
On December 13 2011 23:19 Insurrectionist wrote: Why would Naniwa play a real game anyway? There's no way either him or Nestea would use a build they'd practiced (unless Naniwa just used the one he played against Leenock with) and give future GSL opponents another match to go through and pick apart.
Wrong, Nestea was actually up all night getting ready for the match cause he wanted to play and win. He even didn't celebrate his birthday because beating Naniwa and winning the match that yes, was pointless, was still nonetheless that important to him.
I think the fatal flaw in this assessment is the lack of regard for the cultural aspects that are in play here. When in Rome, do as the Romans, etc. I don't think the issue is Naniwa not giving a crap about the game. The issue is the lack of respect he's shown to Korean culture. What he did, from all accounts I've read, is not acceptable in Korean culture. To say that we, the foreigner community, owe a ton to Korea is a huge understatement. Sure, we can bemoan some of, what we would call, the seemingly arbitrary and esoteric views Koreans have on honor and generational respect. That said, for Naniwa to show such little regard is what is troubling.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote: [...] Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies? [...]
Well, that's the problem. This wasn't a worker rush. He took his probes crossmap, and on arrival didn't micro them the slightest. That "strategy" had exactly 0% chance of succeeding.
Had Nestea 6pooled that would have been all Naniwa had to do to win, but Nestea didn't so therefore he lost. Sure its like a 1% chance that Nestea 6 pools but if he does Naniwa wins, he probably decided not to micro when he saw that Nestea didn't 6 pool because he knew it was pointless.
No, sir: Cancel the pool. Build drones with refund. Win.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
what is the win percentage for a worker rush as opposed to a 6 pool or bunker / cannon rushes?
disrespectful tactic is not what I'm referring to, I'm referring to losing the game on purpose
How do you know he "wanted" to lose that game? He obviously didnt want to play a long game, but that doesnt make him want to lose. Polt and MMA clearly didnt want to play long games either, but people arent freaking out about that.
Hey Swede. I know this might sound crazy, but I don't think any single high-level player would agree with you that a Probe rush (a-move and then taking hands off keyboard) has any remote chance of winning against Nestea.
You cannot prove it has a absolutely no chance of succeeding therefore it is simply a bad strategy. If Naniwa had instantly left the game or had attacked his own nexus, or had not touched his keyboard at all, or had never entered the booth then you would have an argument.
Um he didn't touch his keyboard....he A-moved the drones and then took his hands off the keyboard and let them die so yeah......
On December 13 2011 22:28 Crais wrote: In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
They did that so they could potentially win the crucial game that was played that weekend. They took the gamble and it paid off because they won that important game by resting their players for the Manchester United game. It got a shit storm, but so many teams do it in the Carling cup (the league cup). Often teams make 9-10 changes to their teams to play in the Carling cup so really the same could be said of those teams too.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote: [...] Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies? [...]
Well, that's the problem. This wasn't a worker rush. He took his probes crossmap, and on arrival didn't micro them the slightest. That "strategy" had exactly 0% chance of succeeding.
Had Nestea 6pooled that would have been all Naniwa had to do to win, but Nestea didn't so therefore he lost. Sure its like a 1% chance that Nestea 6 pools but if he does Naniwa wins, he probably decided not to micro when he saw that Nestea didn't 6 pool because he knew it was pointless.
No he didn't even wait to see if Nestea had 6 pooled. he sent the workers and took his hands off the keyboard w/o seeing what Nestea had done. He had no intention of doing anything once the workers had reached his base, regardless of what build Nestea had used. He wanted to lose.
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Although I know almost nothing of baseball, I'm pretty sure you can't compare it to Starcraft. What Naniwa did is not like fielding a B-Team (that would probably be him not playing at his best level, as korean pros have been known to do), but just not playing at all. It's as if the player went on the field and just sat down to let the others score.
Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies?
A probe rush against zerg is as close to 0% percent you can possibly get without killing your own stuff at the beginning. This will never win against anyone who is not completely bad or stupid and certainly not against a professional player. Anyway the argument it being not 0% is stupid, since there is theoretically no strategy that has a 0% percent chance of working,
What he did is like Nazgul said completely disrespectful to fans, viewers, GOMTV, his team and basically everyone.
I really hope he gets punished for this (like getting disqualified from Code S).
I think that a more apt baseball analogy would be if all the batters went into the box and refused to swing. I'm not foolish enough to ask you to give 100% in a meaningless game. I just would hope that you would go through the fucking motions. 6pool, proxy rax or gate, something, anything that actually has a chance of victory rather than doing something that is simply beaten by having a pulse.
It's not about hard set rules. It never was. There's also no rule stating that GOM isn't allowed to kick out naniwa because they don't want someone who doesn't give a rats ass about the viewers.
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'?
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'?
It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove.
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'?
It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard.
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'?
It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard.
No, I'm not the party trying to legislate what strategies are and are not allowed.
On December 13 2011 23:15 ShatterZer0 wrote: Though, that arbitrary line has never been needed to be established in Professional BW... Pro's took too much pride in their games... and when it was found that they were being insincere, they were permanently banned (See Match Fixing Scandal)
This is not even remotely close to the match-fixing scandal. Gomtv staff don't even care about what happened.
On December 13 2011 23:15 ShatterZer0 wrote: Though, it does bring up a good question: What is "required" of a Pro player in a serious game with tens of THOUSANDS of dollars on the line and tens of THOUSANDS of fans' hearts praying for a good game?
They don't owe the fans anything also drama like this is what a lot of fans clearly like (hence this thread).
On December 13 2011 23:15 ShatterZer0 wrote: I mean... If Naniwa had done some insane 2 gate warp gate all in while floating 3k mins (Basically played horribly on purpose instead of simply 6 probe rushing) would we have been more or less angry?
Many would be less angry but that is hypocrisy for you. They would also be less angry if it was a different player (like Sheth for example).
On December 13 2011 23:15 ShatterZer0 wrote: I guess player have the right to play as badly as they want... but doing so has the obvious consequence of alienating them from their fanbase... or getting them blacklisted from tournaments.
Every sport needs a bad boy. As long as Naniwa says true to his character he will have plenty of fans.
On December 13 2011 23:15 ShatterZer0 wrote: I wonder when Tournaments are going to have the monetary stability and presence of mind to begin blacklisting players because they're simply BAD for their events?
How can you say a player is arbitrarily bad for your event it is discrimination.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard.
Not possible since it would require an infinite number of matches to be played to determine.
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'?
It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard.
No, I'm not the party trying to legislate what strategies are and are not allowed.
On December 13 2011 23:11 MinistryofPain wrote: If we're talking in baseball analogies, what Naniwa was doing was putting 9 pitchers in the lineup and then having his batboy as the pitcher. I don't think many people would mind if he tried some wonky all in build, but to do something that lame is just beyond stupid. Again in professional sports, they take that opportunity of a failed season to get their younger players some action. You are playing against one of the best zergs in the game, why wouldn't you take that opportunity to better yourself?
I hear Naniwa say he just wants to be the best and is dedicated on doing everything it takes to do that. That one match shows that he either is full of it, or doesn't believe that every time he sits down to play a game of starcraft he can learn something or work on something from that game...and I don't think he'll ever become the best he can with that sort of attitude.
I agree that the baseball analogy was a poor one for reasons others have already mentioned, most notably playing those younger players gets them valuable experience/exposure from ACTUALLY COMPETING so the team can evaluate them for the following season.
At best, the analogy would be if the manager instructed all his batters to swing at every pitch, regardless of where the pitch was thrown, and every pitcher to throw strikes every single pitch. Is it a non-zero chance of winning? Sure, but there is no intent of actually competing, even if it is staying within the rules. If this had ever happened in a Class A baseball game let alone an MLB one, it would have caused a huge ruckus on ESPN, and ticket buyers would rightfully be upset.
Naniwa didn't just probe rush. He A-moved and took his hands off the keyboard. Even killing his own nexus would have almost taken longer to lose. I acknowledge the game didn't need to be played, but at least do SOMETHING.
The OP also brought up the "Suck for Luck" issue that was potentially going in in the NFL. Although I think the play of the teams has shown that with the possible exception of the Colts, all the other teams are actually competing every week to the best of their abilities and this isn't actually happening, even IF it were, there is at LEAST an actual incentive to not competing, similar to how NBA teams have done in the past in attempts to draft LeBron, etc.
The OP said that Naniwa was somehow looking out for his best interests. I don't see how? What could he have gained from not playing the game? An extra 20 minutes of his life? No one was asking him to use the strat he had originally planned to use against NesTea, but at least compete.
Whether or not he deserves any fines or suspensions, I don't think it can be argued that he deserves the bad press. He had to know nothing good could have come from what he did, and that there was a better than zero chance that something bad would come from it.
On December 13 2011 23:17 sondrizzle wrote: I think you're flat out wrong and fall on your own arguments. First off, you can't really compare team sports on the complete same level given that, well, one of them consists of a lot of players and the other just you and your opponent. Furthermore; in your example the teams still plays. And that is the main gripe. They played! Naniwa could've forfeited the game, and it would be okay, but to just straight up send your workers on attack move and take your hands off the keyboard is just downright dumb.
Furthermore, GOM probably just show the rules on the website given that those websites are purely for entertainment purposes and not for the players playing it to stay up do date. They have rules, they are written, but they are most likely not on their streaming websites.
Likewise, fans who showed up to that Astros-Reds game on September 21 were not owed their money back. The sponsors were not refunded ad revenue, either (as some have suggested be done with GOM). That is the risk you take as a fan when you purchase tickets, and that is the risk you take as a business when you choose to advertise.
Because they fucking got to see a real game, regardless of the skills of the players, they still had a game shown to them. I don't care if you send in your b-team or c-team as long as you play the game. Why would you refund something that was played? Because the involved parties were horrible? If so I'd try to get tons of money back because of games with players I found to be horrible. No, no and no. Naniwa didn't even play a game, he rallied his workers, took his hands of his keyboard and was done with it.
Quite frankly, this post just shows lack of understanding the differences between certain things that should be obvious. I don't care if you're from ESPN, it doesn't give you any credibility whatsoever about a topic you don't understand. Even your comparison is flawed on the basic level; the game was played.
Fake games giving off the illusion of competition is what you want to see? That's weird. I also feel like you have no right to say he lacks the understanding of the two scenes.
If you knew anything about MLB you would know that nobody watches or even cares about these meaningless games. It is understood that the tail end of seasons end up being meaningless for most teams. People do not complain about it. They just choose not to watch. The reason people still showed up is because they bought the tickets in advance. What you probably did not know either was that these games have record lows for attendance, with most of the seats that were sold still being empty. Every single person who plays/commentates/analyses/watches MLB understands these games are meaningless. Without a perfect format for the season it just happens. There is no fake honor or prestige to be had, professional sports communities aren't that naive I guess.
On December 13 2011 23:19 Insurrectionist wrote: Why would Naniwa play a real game anyway? There's no way either him or Nestea would use a build they'd practiced (unless Naniwa just used the one he played against Leenock with) and give future GSL opponents another match to go through and pick apart.
Wrong, Nestea was actually up all night getting ready for the match cause he wanted to play and win. He even didn't celebrate his birthday because beating Naniwa and winning the match that yes, was pointless, was still nonetheless that important to him.
Unless you're implying Nestea is psychic and knew beforehand that they were going to play a meaningless game, I don't see how that argument has any merit. While he would almost certainly put on a show like most pros would in that situation, there is absolutely no way he'd use any ZvP build he ever plans to use in a serious GSL match in the future.
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'?
It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard.
No, I'm not the party trying to legislate what strategies are and are not allowed.
The Astros put out their B-team in order to give them more experience playing in a MLB setting. The more experience players have playing in that setting, the better they will perform in the future (same is true for Starcraft and stage experience). This is 1000 times more true when talking about pitchers. They put their B-team out when it doesn't matter so that they can screw it up without any consequences and gain the experience to not screw it up next time.
As far as validity of strategy is concerned, the only way to have lower chances of winning than that is to either walk away from the computer or destroy all of your own units. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
Losing to get draft picks is also not a good analogy, though I can't say I endorse that practice. Those teams are at least losing in order to gain a reward from it. Naniwa lost on purpose in the most boring way possible just because he didn't feel like playing. What does he have to gain from losing on purpose? He doesn't even have to take it seriously, just make phoenixes or carriers or something and lol your way to a loss. Nobody would have hated him for that.
Just because it is not against any specific rules does not mean it wasn't wrong.
I agree people are overreacting. It's not like it's the end of the world, it's really not that big of a deal. Still, I did lose some respect for Naniwa today. As other people have said, what would WhiteRa have done?
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'?
It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove.
Um you can prove that he took his hands of the keyboard and let them die cause people saw it. You can prove that he made no effort to win at all cause people saw it. Since you like to relate to pro sports, this is really no different than what DeSean Jackson did in the game against the Seahawks where he just quit on his team, regardless of how Andy Reid tried to spin it.
I really can't fathom the fact that people are still tying to make Naniwa's actions look acceptable.
He's a progamer, a team pays and supports him in whatever way they can so he can represent their brand to the best of his abilities. The reason his career is even possible is because of all the people who want to see the best Starcraft possible. The reason he even gets to play tournaments is because there's people spending their entire professional career organising events, raising sponsorships, creating an environment where a player like Naniwa can show his skill and compete.
Throwing the game like that because he can't win the tournament anymore is just an insult to all the people involved. A player that wasn't so selfish would have done his best to make the game entertaining, acknowledging that there's more interests involved than just his own desire for victory. The fact that he doesn't even let the game play out to give his new team some exposure shows how much he cares.
Also, fielding a B-team for games that don't matter in whatever sport is completely different. Having your best players rest for upcoming important matches is strategical, so is the fielding of rookies to give them some experience. And even then a team isn't going to roll over and take it, they'll still want to win and show something to their fans, regardless of whether it "matters" competition wise. A probe rush is similar to just sitting on the gras during a soccer match, there's literally no intention whatsoever to even play, let alone win.
BTW, for the people claiming that A) the Astros were justified in sending out their B-team and B) Naniwa owes it to the fans to play the game out, I ask you, what lineup did Astros fans pay to see when they bought their ticket? Did they pay to see Scrubby McScrubberson, who will toil on shoddy buses in the Minor Leagues for the next three years, or did they pay to see Veteran McAwesomesauce, a cornerstone of the franchise?
When people pay to watch GSL, they pay to watch all the matches in the tournament. Blizzard cup doesn't actually have that many matches, and I know now that if I pay for that particular tournament, I'll be buying the match of Naniwa vs Nestea. That's the issue I have with what he did.
Why are people saying well this is bad for Quantic. Can't you people understand that everyone is talking abtout QUANTIC naniwa, how he just joined QUANTIC. They get so much publicity out of this. Nani should have done nothing different, i as a spectator was like lol nice now we can watch MMA and the awsome games that might follow afterwards. I don't understand why people are upset. Some people have different mentalities, "white-ra cares" so he would have played that game just for fun make some special tactics, while nani doesn't care about anything but wining, that is top priority, for him this was wasted time so he wanted the shortest game possible, and you do that by worker rushing, he could have won but there was a 99% chance that he would lose. So stop crying naniwa doesn't owe you anything but games where he wins. And in my opinon quantic gaming gained huge publicity due to this and no one should be mad. So grow up people!
On December 13 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: BTW, for the people claiming that A) the Astros were justified in sending out their B-team and B) Naniwa owes it to the fans to play the game out, I ask you, what lineup did Astros fans pay to see when they bought their ticket? Did they pay to see Scrubby McScrubberson, who will toil on shoddy buses in the Minor Leagues for the next three years, or did they pay to see Veteran McAwesomesauce, a cornerstone of the franchise?
But the B-Team STILL PLAYED THEIR HARDEST AND TRIED TO WIN!! They weren't sent out there with the purpose of losing, they wanted to win. Do you see the difference?
On December 13 2011 22:47 MrCash wrote: Let's also forgive Coca and everyone else who ever dropped games intentionally.
There can be no gray area when it comes to losing intentionally, it is a very slippery slope which can lead to horrible ramifications for ALL of eSports, not just one player. This should not be tolerated, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you try to do in order to justify it.
Exactly what I was thinking.
While GOM may not/can not/ should not penalize Naniwa because Naniwa hasnt violated any rules written in stone, there has to be repercussions for intentionally throwing a game. For all the people rationalising this incident, we might as well never try to have words like sportsmanship in Esports. I for one just cannot support a player like Naniwa. We are in a grey area when we start talkin about morality of a Sport, but it exists.. in every sport. And its clear to everyone when it is violated.. this case being clearly one.
Going after GOM also does not make sense because they are always redundant games in every sport. Doesn mean the spectators do not deserve an honest showing.
On December 13 2011 23:36 Saechiis wrote: I really can't fathom the fact that people are still tying to make Naniwa's actions look acceptable.
He's a progamer, a team pays and supports him in whatever way they can so he can represent their brand to the best of his abilities. The reason his career is even possible is because of all the people who want to see the best Starcraft possible. The reason he even gets to play tournaments is because there's people spending their entire professional career organising events, raising sponsorships, creating an environment where a player like Naniwa can show his skill and compete.
Throwing the game like that because he can't win the tournament anymore is just an insult to all the people involved. A player that wasn't so selfish would have done his best to make the game entertaining, acknowledging that there's more interests involved than just his own desire for victory. The fact that he doesn't even let the game play out to give his new team some exposure shows how much he cares.
On the other hand, if they played and pretended the game was a 'real' game (i.e. they tried their best) they would be giant frauds, and pretending that these games are ever going to be worthy of the same respect as the games that actually matter is an insult to professional gaming. I would feel far more insulted if they'd duked it out in a macro game and tried to pull some 'best player won' bullshit afterwards when everyone knows neither of them brought their best builds or strategies.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate >= 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
You don't think taking your hands off the keyboard once you have sent the drones and not reacting at all to what Nestea did or what his build is is 0% 'strategy'?
It's not about what I think; it's about what you can prove.
I think the burden of proof is on you to show that a player with 7 supply, all workers, has won a game with their hands off of the keyboard.
No, I'm not the party trying to legislate what strategies are and are not allowed.
Your Wikipedia skills are appreciated, but that article is wrongfully cited, my friend.
"Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument."
From the Wikipedia article I linked:
"Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion."
I can break down what you posted into predicate calculus for you if you'd like. That will show how your argument is, in fact, argument from ignorance.
Theres hundreds of Koreans trying hard as hell to get to play in the GSL and nani goes and just forfeits a game like that.. And please don't say it was a valid cheese, he didn't even try to micro his probes.
On December 13 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: BTW, for the people claiming that A) the Astros were justified in sending out their B-team and B) Naniwa owes it to the fans to play the game out, I ask you, what lineup did Astros fans pay to see when they bought their ticket? Did they pay to see Scrubby McScrubberson, who will toil on shoddy buses in the Minor Leagues for the next three years, or did they pay to see Veteran McAwesomesauce, a cornerstone of the franchise?
But the B-Team STILL PLAYED THEIR HARDEST AND TRIED TO WIN!! They weren't sent out there with the purpose of losing, they wanted to win. Do you see the difference?
I'm pretty sure the Astros did not try their hardest to win the game, as their best lineup was not on the field. Additionally, you're assuming intent, which is specious at best.
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate > 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Not sure if serious, or trolling. Are you really a professional writer and yet grinding the argument, that the worker-rush may or may not be "valid"??!? Come on dude, you can't be serious.
You want "prove"?
1. a zerg drone defeats a probe in a 1v1 battle, if not microed. 2. the time it takes to walk you probes to the zergs base is mining time for the zerg. 3. depending on the map, spawn positions and so on this mining time leads to a more or less huge advantage, but its ALWAYS at least 50 minerals (a drone). 4. Win.
On December 13 2011 22:31 leo23 wrote: So do you think it's ok if Houston would have thrown a fly ball and not bat at all?
As I've said in other threads, I would have been happy if he at least done a 2 gate cheese of some sort (sending out his B team) but I think naniwa sent his double A team here.
So you deside which cheese is good enough? Yeah cause that make sense...
Right, that's the arbitrary line I was talking about. If we declare worker rushes a disrespectful tactic, what precedent is there to stop us from doing the same with cannon rushes, or bunker pushes, or 6 pool + spine rushes?
At Naniwa's level, a 6 worker rush is not a winnable strategy. He could do it 10000 games in a row and would lose every single one.
On December 13 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: BTW, for the people claiming that A) the Astros were justified in sending out their B-team and B) Naniwa owes it to the fans to play the game out, I ask you, what lineup did Astros fans pay to see when they bought their ticket? Did they pay to see Scrubby McScrubberson, who will toil on shoddy buses in the Minor Leagues for the next three years, or did they pay to see Veteran McAwesomesauce, a cornerstone of the franchise?
No one is saying he had to play at his absolute best, but at least make more than 3 total actions for your entire game. If you are speaking as an impartial journalist, you have to agree that sending out your AAA farm team is STILL better than what Naniwa did.
In terms of ticket buyers, Baseball has been going on for what, well over a century now? 99% of baseball fans know what happens at the end of seasons by now. I really don't think there are many if any complaints about who plays in the games at the end of seasons, AS LONG AS THEY PLAY. Naniwa didn't play.
On December 13 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: BTW, for the people claiming that A) the Astros were justified in sending out their B-team and B) Naniwa owes it to the fans to play the game out, I ask you, what lineup did Astros fans pay to see when they bought their ticket? Did they pay to see Scrubby McScrubberson, who will toil on shoddy buses in the Minor Leagues for the next three years, or did they pay to see Veteran McAwesomesauce, a cornerstone of the franchise?
But the B-Team STILL PLAYED THEIR HARDEST AND TRIED TO WIN!! They weren't sent out there with the purpose of losing, they wanted to win. Do you see the difference?
I'm pretty sure the Astros did not try their hardest to win the game, as their best lineup was not on the field. Additionally, you're assuming intent, which is specious at best.
So you are saying those B-Teamers didn't try their hardest to win, didn't try their hardest to show that they can play at the major league level and belong at the major league level? Mind you I'm saying the actual players not the team/organization.
On December 13 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: BTW, for the people claiming that A) the Astros were justified in sending out their B-team and B) Naniwa owes it to the fans to play the game out, I ask you, what lineup did Astros fans pay to see when they bought their ticket? Did they pay to see Scrubby McScrubberson, who will toil on shoddy buses in the Minor Leagues for the next three years, or did they pay to see Veteran McAwesomesauce, a cornerstone of the franchise?
But the B-Team STILL PLAYED THEIR HARDEST AND TRIED TO WIN!! They weren't sent out there with the purpose of losing, they wanted to win. Do you see the difference?
I'm pretty sure the Astros did not try their hardest to win the game, as their best lineup was not on the field. Additionally, you're assuming intent, which is specious at best.
"I'm pretty sure [...] Additionally, you're assuming intent, which is specious at best."
On December 13 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: BTW, for the people claiming that A) the Astros were justified in sending out their B-team and B) Naniwa owes it to the fans to play the game out, I ask you, what lineup did Astros fans pay to see when they bought their ticket? Did they pay to see Scrubby McScrubberson, who will toil on shoddy buses in the Minor Leagues for the next three years, or did they pay to see Veteran McAwesomesauce, a cornerstone of the franchise?
But the B-Team STILL PLAYED THEIR HARDEST AND TRIED TO WIN!! They weren't sent out there with the purpose of losing, they wanted to win. Do you see the difference?
I'm pretty sure the Astros did not try their hardest to win the game, as their best lineup was not on the field. Additionally, you're assuming intent, which is specious at best.
"I'm pretty sure [...] Additionally, you're assuming intent, which is specious at best."
You, sir, have huge brass balls. Congratulations.
My use of "pretty sure" was a rhetorical device, not an assumption of intent. It's an actual fact that they did not try their hardest to win, considering they were not using their best lineup.
On December 13 2011 22:33 imMUTAble787 wrote: I really don't see any validity to the comparison you chose at all. Naniwa punted a game in an invitational tournament that was supposed to showcase the top talent of SC2 from the year. It was cowardly and childish at best.
It's even borderline hypocritical to see someone who constantly says they care about nothing other than winning to purposely lose a game like that.
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate > 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Not sure if serious, or trolling. Are you really a professional writer and yet grinding the argument, that the worker-rush may or may not be "valid"??!? Come on dude, you can't be serious.
You want "prove"?
1. a zerg drone defeats a probe in a 1v1 battle, if not microed. 2. the time it takes to walk you probes to the zergs base is mining time for the zerg. 3. depending on the map, spawn positions and so on this mining time leads to a more or less huge advantage, but its ALWAYS at least 50 minerals (a drone). 4. Win.
Sending out Triple A players in MLB is little different than 1% win rate strategy's in SC2. Only difference is in MLB it is totally acceptable. There is no hate on teams that field bad rosters. They just understand what it is.
MLB seasons towards the end are basically workers rush vs worker rush. You just have this false impression that the MLB community sees it in a different light. They see it for what it is, and they accept it.
Does anyone remember how pissed off everyone was at Sjow v. White-Ra at Dreamhack Winter 2011? It was group stages and both players had been sealed out of advancement. In fact, it took place right after Sjow had been locked out in an extremely tense series. It was also late. The tournament had been running for >14hours, and Day[9] was going delirious on the other stream casting the most boring game of all time (1.5hr Happy v. ToD). Even Total Biscuit had started complaining about wanting to go to bed rather than cast Sjow v. White-Ra.
Sjow, likely pissed off about having to play a series that didn't matter just after losing his most important series of the night, executed a series of build that made no sense. This could have been a glorious TvP. But it was not. It was abundantly clear that neither player was playing to win. There was no glory. There was no honor at stake. There was no inspiring micro or beautiful positioning. Just two players who clearly had no more F***s to give.
There is no rule for this because it seems unheard of in Korean culture. Are you saying that just because GOM doesn't have an explicit rule that it's okay? Common sense needs to be had at some point. I'm gonna go crap in a urinal now
On December 13 2011 23:50 Arcane86 wrote: Does anyone remember how pissed off everyone was at Sjow v. White-Ra at Dreamhack Winter 2011? It was group stages and both players had been sealed out of advancement. In fact, it took place right after Sjow had been locked out in an extremely tense series. It was also late. The tournament had been running for >14hours, and Day[9] was going delirious on the other stream casting the most boring game of all time (1.5hr Happy v. ToD). Even Total Biscuit had started complaining about wanting to go to bed rather than cast Sjow v. White-Ra.
Sjow, likely pissed off about having to play a series that didn't matter just after losing his most important series of the night, executed a series of build that made no sense. This could have been a glorious TvP. But it was not. It was abundantly clear that neither player was playing to win. There was no glory. There was no honor at stake. There was no inspiring micro or beautiful positioning. Just two players who clearly had no more F***s to give.
Remember how outraged people were about this?
Oh right, they weren't.
Now you switch names with Naniwa and Nestea and internet blows up. Internet is stupid. And im gona end at this.
On December 13 2011 22:28 Crais wrote: In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
EPL actually has a rule that says you must field a full strength side or something tho, unlike american sports
I don't remember that game at all. It's very common in football to send out your B team to rest A team players for more important games. Very very common, in fact.
For example now that Man U are in the Europa League, you can be damn sure they won't be fielding the players they do against the top flight teams...and no one will say a damn word about it.
And tbh I don't care for what organisation you write or who you are. What you are saying is just incorrect and not very well thought through. Your job does not change anything about it.
you say about a probe rush: "but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless"
That is just delusional. Either you lie to yourself and others or you have no clue about this game. A probe rush will and can never win a PvZ on pro level. No pro player will say any different. So your argument is actually completely wrong.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that Idra did also forfeit matches in IPL groupstage because they didn't matter. Most of the people were okay about that, because it was a fan favourite who did that and not Naniwa.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote: Naniwa is taking entirely too much grief for what was ultimately a decision made in his best interest.
That's true for Coca too, by the way, he needed practice. Koreans apparently did not care that he was pursuing his best interest for personal development. In both cases there should have been no real consequence, except a simple warning to handle the same situation better administratively next time (with official resign without actually playing or sending replays).
There's a difference in not trying as hard, and completely throwing a game. Unmicro'd probes have literally 0.0000000% chance of winning that game lest nestea has a heart attack.
what naniwa did is the equivalent of a professional golf player taking happy gilmore swings on the back nine of the fourth round when he is totally out of contention, not substituting backup players for starters in a game that lacks "true" impact in relation to the rest of the sport (especially when there may be totally legitimate reasons for doing so i.e. potential injury, getting young players experience, etc.)
any appeal to the contrary is absurd and objectively nonfactual
On December 13 2011 22:28 Crais wrote: In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
EPL actually has a rule that says you must field a full strength side or something tho, unlike american sports
I don't remember that game at all. It's very common in football to send out your B team to rest A team players for more important games. Very very common, in fact.
For example now that Man U are in the Europa League, you can be damn sure they won't be fielding the players they do against the top flight teams...and no one will say a damn word about it.
Yep and nobody said a word when United rested their entire starting lineup vs Hull in order to prepare for the CL final - and that game could have saved Hull from relegation, so it could have had massive implications.
This happens all the time in football. The only two examples I can remember of fines (and very small ones tbf) being handed out are the wolves vs utd and blackpool vs villa last season. But both incidents were highly controversial even though the PL has rules against this. Let's remember, there are no rules against this in SC2.
Players also do this all the time in starcraft. They just don't do it as blatantly as naniwa did.
When MLB teams that are not in contention send out their Minor League players in games in late September, they aren't doing it to throw the game and are not intentionally fielding a bad team (The roster spots open up from 25 to 40 in September, plus the Minor League season is over so those players have nothing to do otherwise).
They do it to DEVELOP THEIR YOUNG TALENT OF THE FUTURE BY GIVING THEM BIG LEAGUE EXPERIENCE, not to lose a game on purpose because they are disinterested. Jesus Christ.
The example that you give has NOTHING to do with THROWING a "MEANINGLESS" match (That a lot of people, including the casters, were looking forward to, and paid money to watch in HQ) in a 1V1 game. This is not a "rational" take on the situation AT ALL. This is a SHAM of a thread and YOU ARE WRONG.
On December 14 2011 00:05 Darksteel wrote: Everyone seems to have forgotten that Idra did also forfeit matches in IPL groupstage because they didn't matter. Most of the people were okay about that, because it was a fan favourite who did that and not Naniwa.
A few things to note is that due to technical difficulties, games were running at least 3? hours late at that IPL and they were kind of scrambling to finish up games as is. Also, Idra at least had the argument that forfeiting those games so he could get a full nights rest before his matches the following day would be beneficial to how he would play the rest of the tournament. Naniwa had no benefit from not playing out that game.
Likewise when Idra forfeited MLG placement games previously, (not the haypro one at the finals, as he said he didn't hear the call) these were not broadcasted matches, and were never going to be broadcasted, which I feel is significant.
On December 14 2011 00:05 Darksteel wrote: Everyone seems to have forgotten that Idra did also forfeit matches in IPL groupstage because they didn't matter. Most of the people were okay about that, because it was a fan favourite who did that and not Naniwa.
The community can be extremely hypocritical at times, but do not confuse norms with facts. That's exactly what the OP fails to confront.
I completely agree with most of the article. I don't know about how 'valid' the probe rush is, but beyond that everything you've laid out makes sense. And for everyone with a hang up about the probe rush comment, you should realize that that was only the weaker of two arguments being made here. There was no logical gap that the probe rush point was filling.
Player enters tournament to win. The tournament structure forced a player to play a game which wouldn't benifit him. Player didn't care about the game. Player probe rushes because he doesn't care.
If we accept that players are playing to to win and not to produce great games, then I think that this is completely understandable. It's a tournament's responsibility to put players in the position to create great games.
Personally the only thing I'm disappointed about is the fact that I didn't get to see it. I really wish people would calm down. Oh my god, he was actually frustrated? What an outrage, he needs to man the fuck up and play his heart out. Whats with the double standard? Idra preemptive GG's all the time, but suddenly a legit worker rush is deemed too far?
On December 13 2011 22:28 Crais wrote: In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
EPL actually has a rule that says you must field a full strength side or something tho, unlike american sports
I don't remember that game at all. It's very common in football to send out your B team to rest A team players for more important games. Very very common, in fact.
For example now that Man U are in the Europa League, you can be damn sure they won't be fielding the players they do against the top flight teams...and no one will say a damn word about it.
Yep and nobody said a word when United rested their entire starting lineup vs Hull in order to prepare for the CL final - and that game could have saved Hull from relegation, so it could have had massive implications.
This happens all the time in football. The only two examples I can remember of fines (and very small ones tbf) being handed out are the wolves vs utd and blackpool vs villa last season. But both incidents were highly controversial even though the PL has rules against this. Let's remember, there are no rules against this in SC2.
Players also do this all the time in starcraft. They just don't do it as blatantly as naniwa did.
which is precisely the difference between professional sports and amateur sports
how can you compare this to a baseball game that was actually played? that is just an absolutely awful comparison. oh and the suck for luck thing isnt real, nfl teams arent trying to lose. EVERYONE said miami was doing suck for luck but they won 3 games in a row. suck for luck is just a made up term by the media for more ratings, if any team intentionally threw a game like naniwa did there would be a huge punishment.
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate > 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Hi OP.
What is the win-rate of a 6 probe rush in a live, televised match?
Also, you need to count the execution. Strategy by itself means nothing, you need to execute it, and Nani didn't place any effort at microing. Your logic completely miss the execution. As I see, Nani threw the game. It doesn't matter which strategy he played. Not putting any effort at playing the game, whatever strategy he used, is what decides validity or invalidity.
I understand the original argument, and while it has some relevance to the situation, they are not all that similar. First of all, he isn't playing the Reds, he's playing NesTea, could not really be more different in terms of prestige or notoriety (one of the best players in the world, albiet in a slump, vs an incredibly mediocre franchise with an almost non-existant fanbase). You would think a team would at least put forth some effort in the equivalent of a nationally televised game (internationally televised in this case) against a high profile opponent (for this argument's sake we will say the Red Sox, wildly popular...didn't make the playoffs).
Also as a sports writer I'm surprised you are just pointing out that the Astros just suck. Plate appearances for a last place team decimated by midyear trades (Bourn, Pence, Keppinger all starters traded mid year for prospects) after september call-ups? how is that going to accurately portray effort? They started their best pitcher (Wandy) and almost all their best players. Shafer is their CF of the future Shuck is a prospect...maybe not their best but they are giving him so ABs Johnson and Barmes are their starters Lee is their best hitter Towles is their 1B catcher with quintero
they could have started Altuve and Brett Wallace but Wallace wasnt hitting too well and people need a day off every once in a while.
Playing against a Marquee player in THE Marquee SC2 Tournament in the World and pulling that is nothing like playing some prospects against the Reds
It's 2am so forgive if this is a terrible point but do other sports and stuff have tournaments set up in such a way where some people have to play pointless games like which was the case here?
But really, as much as it does suck for the viewers, he is the player and he is more than entitled to play however the fuck he wants and for anyone to claim that he HAS to play in any certain manner is just a selfish and entitled position to take, he owes no one anything.
I lie somewhere in the middle regarding the situation with Naniwa, I'm not infuriated with him and asking GOM for my money back, but I do not think his actions were acceptable.
To parallel your sports analogy, those teams are self-contained systems with a responsibility only to the team. The team generates revenue and pays the players, they do not have external obligations. I more closely relate the professional SC2 scene to the X-Sports where it's sponsorship based. In this context there are very clear obligations to REPRESENT the sponsors and organization appropriately.
Moreover, when teams put out their b-list players they're still finishing the game. When Oakland was trailing Green Bay by 30-whatever at the half did they just kneel out the 2nd half? no they finished the game. Granted this context is more difficult in SC2 where there is no set time, but the disconnect in analogy needs to be made clear.
There's also the issue of branding yourself. eSports may be growing rapidly but we're not there yet. Players aren't living luxurious lives for the most part. Things like player streams, twitter accounts, AMAs, etc aren't for the benefit of the players' skill, it's about building a brand.
Hamzilla had a great point that it's not officially written because it's implied in the Korean culture. To need explicit boundaries on what can and cannot be done is a very western idea because quite honestly people don't have any respect for what they do. There's a high level of respect and privilege in being given opportunities in an Asian culture and so many things are "to be expected" because it's a cultural norm not to disrespect an organization that has given you an opportunity to pursue your dream.
The other thing that players, teams, organizations, fans, and spectators need to be aware of that actions like this do DAMAGE to the movement in legitimizing eSports. Sure sometimes MLB teams may put out a B-list line-up or NFL teams rest their starters, but don't forget how much money those leagues make for advertisers, networks, and the teams the other 99 out of 100 times. It's permissible because it's fiscally mitigated by the overall gains. Trying to get a network to go out of its way and take a risk on broadcasting an eSports event doesn't want the risk of something like this happening.
On December 13 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote: BTW, for the people claiming that A) the Astros were justified in sending out their B-team and B) Naniwa owes it to the fans to play the game out, I ask you, what lineup did Astros fans pay to see when they bought their ticket? Did they pay to see Scrubby McScrubberson, who will toil on shoddy buses in the Minor Leagues for the next three years, or did they pay to see Veteran McAwesomesauce, a cornerstone of the franchise?
Carlos Lee played in the game. As I'm from Houston, he's basically the only Veteran McAwesomesauce that they have.
I realize that since you are from ESPN, if it's not the Yankees or the Red Sox then you have very little idea of the teams, but the Astros have a dismal lineup this year. If I was a fan, (I'm a Cubs fan) then yes. Yes, I would be craving to see what the farm system can do. I would be craving to see the future of the team.
I'm taken aback at your gross ineptitude throughout this entire thread honestly.
EDIT: Looks at their roster How many people with 500 ABs do you see?
How many of you were actually at the GOM Studio? None of us asked for our money back, and I certainly would feel bad about accepting a refund after getting to watch such amazing games followed by a great tie breaker! I'm sorry that 1 game out of the 1000's you will watch with that year GOMtv pass wasn't spectacular, but you do not deserve a refund.
A worker rush isn't really the same as putting in your B team.
If Naniwa had just done a half-hearted one-base all-in, fine. But working rushing is the same as if an entire basketball team just walked around the field doing nothing for an entire game.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote: It's September 21, 2011. The 49-96 Houston Astros are in Cincinnati, Ohio to play the 76-80 Reds. Both teams below the .500 mark, the game has no meaning whatsoever -- not for the Astros, not for the Reds, not for any other team in the division (NL Central).
As bad as the Astros were that season, they did have what could be deemed an A-lineup, a lineup consisting of their best players at each position. That was not the lineup they used on this Wednesday afternoon.
A typical full-time Major League hitter accrues in excess of 600 plate appearances in a single season. Here is a look at the lineup the Astros used along with each player's PA total:
Jordan Schafer, CF (118 PA) J.B. Shuck, RF (92 PA) J.D. Martinez, LF (226 PA) Carlos Lee, 1B (653 PA) Matt Downs, 2B (222 PA) Chris Johnson, 3B (405 PA) Clint Barmes, SS (495 PA) J.R. Towles, C (165 PA) Pitcher (pitchers get significantly fewer PA than position players, so this is irrelevant)
The average hitter in the lineup had about 300 PA, or half that of a full-time player. Needless to say, the Astros were intentionally putting out a sub-par lineup.
To prove that, let's look at their offensive production using a statistic called weighted on-base average (wOBA). The league average is between .310-.320.
Only two Astros made it above the .320 threshold. It is safe to say that the Astros were, uh, not trying their hardest to win that afternoon's game.
I bring this up because a controversy arose earlier after both Naniwa and Nestea went 0-3 in their group in the Blizzard Cup. With eight of ten matches already completed, the fates of both players were sealed, making their match-up in Game #9 meaningless. Naniwa chose, instead of playing out an irrelevant game, to rush with his six starting workers across the map of Antiga Shipyard towards Nestea's base. Needless to say, the probe rush did not succeed; Naniwa dropped to 0-4 while Nestea erased the goose egg in his wins column.
Quickly after the game, TL and Reddit were on fire with complaints from community members, claiming that Naniwa's behavior was immature and disrespectful. Some called for punishment to be levied from GOM; others angrily sent emails to Naniwa's new team, Quantic Gaming.
I seem to be in the minority thinking that Naniwa did nothing wrong, just as the Astros above did nothing wrong by putting out their "B-lineup" several months ago in the final weeks of the baseball season.
First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies?
We need to have lines here, and they cannot be drawn arbitrarily. More importantly, they should be drawn officially. I don't see anywhere on the GOM website where they have official rules for their tournaments, but something like that should be addressed in written word. Such ruling does not exist in most (if not all) professional sports; teams are allowed to tank on purpose. This is especially prevalent in the NBA, when teams will intentionally lose to increase the probability that they get a good draft pick in the lottery. It happens in the NFL as well. In fact, the phrase "suck for Luck" refers to teams taking a dive every week so they are better suited to draft college quarterback Andrew Luck, currently at Stanford University.
A common refrain I've read is that Naniwa owes it to GOM, the sponsors, his team, the fans, etc. to play out the meaningless game. And that is just flat-out wrong. Naniwa's job is to win games -- that is, win games that matter. Winning that game against Nestea would not have done anything for Naniwa except earn a couple brownie points (in other words, nothing). And if it's not against official rules and the terms of his contract with Quantic Gaming, then again, he did nothing wrong. Likewise, fans who showed up to that Astros-Reds game on September 21 were not owed their money back. The sponsors were not refunded ad revenue, either (as some have suggested be done with GOM). That is the risk you take as a fan when you purchase tickets, and that is the risk you take as a business when you choose to advertise. Ultimately, if the fans and/or the sponsors do have a legitimate gripe about what happened, that is to be taken up with GOM, not Naniwa.
As a fan, you can hate Naniwa for whatever reasons you want, legitimate or not. When we're dealing with a player's livelihood, however, we need to have rational, adult conversations, and I'm just not seeing any of that in the community. When you calm down, take a step back and examine the situation, you should see that Naniwa is taking entirely too much grief for what was ultimately a decision made in his best interest.
Not a good analogy. Firstly, as has been stated countless times already, playing a B team is not the same as what Naniwa did. A B team can actually win a game, a B team can actually be entertaining, What Naniwa did is as close to a 0% chance to win as you can get.
Secondly, and I'll give you a baseball response, that wasn't their B team. The Astros just sucked so fucking badly that the lineup you pasted was pretty much mostly guys who were splitting time cause they didn't have very many legit starters. Shuck was a callup and played regularly from that point, Schaefer was traded from the Braves and had over 300 PA throughout the season, and that's just 2 examples.
Thirdly, that game was a week before the season actually ended, so throughout that week more people played, including their starting 1B Brett Wallace (who also fucking sucked).
Back to Starcraft, yes it is partly GOM's fault for the tournament format, but Naniwa is a PROFESSIONAL gamer, who's core responsibility is as an entertainer, not to win games, because winning games is what entertains the fans who put money into the sport and thus allow him to earn a salary, sponsorships and tournament winnings. You state Naniwa's job is to win games? How does winning games matter? Think about it, what does Naniwa accomplish by winning a game of Starcraft 2? It entertains YOU, provides a service to YOU and to US as fans. So inherently, his job, as I stated earlier, is to entertain. We put money into this sport because it's entertaining. And he's trained to play for 8-9 hours per day, how exhausted was he really after playing 4 games within reasonable time intervals?
You really think the players themselves are trying to suck so that they can draft Andrew Luck? Why don't you go ask Peyton Manning how good losing feels, I'm sure he wouldn't tell you it's ok because Andrew Luck will be on the team next year.
His decision that was made, in your words, his best interest is in fact not in his best interest at all. If any other profession caught him so blatantly half-assing his work, he would be punished for it.
On December 13 2011 22:28 Crais wrote: In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
EPL actually has a rule that says you must field a full strength side or something tho, unlike american sports
I don't remember that game at all. It's very common in football to send out your B team to rest A team players for more important games. Very very common, in fact.
For example now that Man U are in the Europa League, you can be damn sure they won't be fielding the players they do against the top flight teams...and no one will say a damn word about it.
Yep and nobody said a word when United rested their entire starting lineup vs Hull in order to prepare for the CL final - and that game could have saved Hull from relegation, so it could have had massive implications.
This happens all the time in football. The only two examples I can remember of fines (and very small ones tbf) being handed out are the wolves vs utd and blackpool vs villa last season. But both incidents were highly controversial even though the PL has rules against this. Let's remember, there are no rules against this in SC2.
Players also do this all the time in starcraft. They just don't do it as blatantly as naniwa did.
which is precisely the difference between professional sports and amateur sports
edit: its still an abhorrent comparison though
Absolutely.
Basically it comes down to the way he did it. If he had 4 gated or cannon rushed nobody would have given half a shit. He did it in a very blunt manner and perhaps came off a bit disrespectful. That's really all there is to it.
This whole drama is worse than the weekly reddit-pitchforkfest.
On December 14 2011 00:23 SonOfMKP wrote: How many of you were actually at the GOM Studio? None of us asked for our money back, and I certainly would feel bad about accepting a refund after getting to watch such amazing games followed by a great tie breaker! I'm sorry that 1 game out of the 1000's you will watch with that year GOMtv pass wasn't spectacular, but you do not deserve a refund.
Just wanted to point out that going to the studio is free, so you didn't have any money to ask back.
People who keep making the sports analogies don't realize that these are not the same situations.
Read the OP, it explicitly states an example that completely counteracts your analogies. And to reiterate/expand on it further...
- Professional teams have been shown that they do actually throw games or at least not try as hard as they would normally. Just like what Naniwa did. And several other SC2 progamers for that matter (Stephano vs Bratok anyone?) Maybe not blatantly, but they are still not playing at 100% of their ability. - Players that are used will STILL do their best, because for those players there ARE things on the line. For example if a pitcher makes X strikeouts, he will fulfill a part of his contract and obtain more money. If bench warmers actually play well, they have a chance of becoming the 1st string (of course if their coaches explicitly tell them not to play to their best, then they won't). However, Naniwa had absolutely nothing on the line other than pride; no extra money in the tournament, no fulfilling parts of his contract (as far as I know), etc.
For people who say "well he insulted the koreans", then that means the koreans need to chill. Obviously they won't, but from a legal, logical point of view, Naniwa didn't do anything wrong that other professional athletes have done, and that hating on Naniwa but not on these other athletes is a double standard.
When I first finished your post, I thought that you had a fairly good grasp of the situation and of the arguments supporting Naniwa's decision.
When I reread it, I found that there was one particular piece of logic you fail to address that weakens your argument.
The fact that the Astros sent out a sub-par line-up could be due to other reasons than 'not wanting to play a game that didn't matter.' This makes the the Astro event and the Naniwa event impossible to compare because the intent behind both actions was fundamentally different. It is entirely possible that the Astros wanted their B-teamers to gain some gameplay experience, allowing the team as a whole to improve and 'make the best of a bad situation. In fact, one might argue that fielding B-teamers in a 'meaningless game' is the perfect strategic move; it allows for higher utilization of thereby underutilized players, the allowance for the team to improve and deepen in skill as a whole, the ability to showcase players that did not have a chance to play previously for fans, and altogether bring together team morale (let's end this season on a bang mentality). Therefore, I submit that the Astros sending out of a B-teamer lineup was ultimately for the team's overall benefit by taking advantage of a 'meaningless' game as a learning experience.
Only the absurd would consider Naniwa's worker rush as anywhere near the same. The intent wasn't to treat the 'meaningless' game as a learning experience, or to try and abstract any sort of benefit from it, or anything like that. The intent of Naniwa vs Nestea from Naniwa's perspective was simply to give up.
I won't repeat the ad nauseum arguments detailing how this is disrespectful towards East Asian culture, but I will say that it pains me to watch a player throw away a chance to turn a bad situation into something at least slightly beneficial. While I understand the emotional stress he was under, my major disappointment is in his easy willingness to just give up the fight rather than turning the unwinnable into something wonderful. As a few people have said, if he came into that final game with a real willingness to learn from another game, to learn from another experience, and triumphed, he wouldn't be 'Naniwa, the 0-3'd loser who gave up in the last game' but 'Naniwa, the 1-3 Toss who ended his stay at the Blizzard Cup with an amazing display of talent and beat down the arguable #1 Z player in the world to finish off 2011.'
I can't respect a player who's drive for self-improvement is broken so easily by adversity, be it bad luck, tournament structure, or whatever. Sure it's understandable, but the beauty in sports mythos are the players, the teams who become more than understandable and transcend those limits into legend.
The job of a pro whatever, be it footballer, baseball player, SC2 player is to COMPETE, not just win. Yes I want to see my favorite teams and/or players win of course. But primarily I want to see them try their damn hardest to win and show some damn heart and passion for the game. If you are only a fan of team or player(s) when they win, and don't watch or care about them when they are losing but at least are trying their hardest, then that's being a bandwagoner, not a true fan.
On December 14 2011 00:30 IMPrime wrote: Read the OP, it explicitly states an example that completely counteracts your analogies. And to reiterate/expand on it further...
The only thing the OP shows is how ignorant ESPN is about anything that isn't the Yankees or Red Sox in terms of baseball.
I will post the Houston Astros roster again. That was their lineup. They weren't saving their good guys, other than arguably giving Pence and Bourne a breather. Their lineup is actually that bad.
The example proved nothing anyway. That team played 9 innings of baseball and did what they could to win.
On December 14 2011 00:31 Slider954 wrote: The job of a pro whatever, be it footballer, baseball player, SC2 player is to COMPETE, not just win. Yes I want to see my favorite teams and/or players win of course. But primarily I want to see them try their damn hardest to win and show some damn heart and passion for the game. If you are only a fan of team or player(s) when they win, and don't watch or care about them when they are losing but at least are trying their hardest, then that's being a bandwagoner, not a true fan.
I'm not sure of the relevance. Naniwa was never going to go all out trying to win and neither was Nestea. We were not deprived of that. It would not have been competition.
To your point though, I'd argue that it's possible to simply be a fan of good play. It doesn't make you a glory hound or a bandwagoner if you just like to see good players play well.
On December 14 2011 00:31 Slider954 wrote: The job of a pro whatever, be it footballer, baseball player, SC2 player is to COMPETE, not just win. Yes I want to see my favorite teams and/or players win of course. But primarily I want to see them try their damn hardest to win and show some damn heart and passion for the game. If you are only a fan of team or player(s) when they win, and don't watch or care about them when they are losing but at least are trying their hardest, then that's being a bandwagoner, not a true fan.
I'm not sure of the relevance. Naniwa was never going to go all out trying to win and neither was Nestea. We were not deprived of that. It would not have been competition.
To your point though, I'd argue that it's possible to simply be a fan of good play. It doesn't make you a glory hound or a bandwagoner if you just like to see good players play well.
Do you honestly believe that Nestea wasn't going into that match with the mindset of 'I'm gonna beat the asshat down' after all the drama that's gone down between them at MLG, even if the match was pointless. That right there is the difference between Nestea and Nani cause regardless of whether the match mattered or not, I'd be willing to bet that Nestea sure as hell wanted to win.
Thank you, Crashburn, for a sensible thread :D I agree with you completely. I wish everyone would calm down and take the game for what it was... funny to watch and a simple show of emotion.
Its all about motivation, i would not want to play in a tournament anymore when i basically already lost it, whats the point in playing with nothing on the line?
On December 13 2011 22:28 Crais wrote: In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
EPL actually has a rule that says you must field a full strength side or something tho, unlike american sports
Wasn't it Blackpool, not the Wolves (both have orange jerseys)? I remember the manager of Blackpool had been in a verbal feud with the FA earlier, and threatend to play with their B-team to prove a point of some sort, which is why it caused such a stir. The incident with clubs putting unexperienced players on the field for less important games happens every week - just look at Premier League clubs' starting lineup in the FA Cup during the first rounds. They do the same in Premier League if they've got an important game in Champions League / Europe League (UEFA Cup) the same week..
.. shame people are making it their job to hate on NaNiwa, just because it's him.
On December 14 2011 00:31 Slider954 wrote: The job of a pro whatever, be it footballer, baseball player, SC2 player is to COMPETE, not just win. Yes I want to see my favorite teams and/or players win of course. But primarily I want to see them try their damn hardest to win and show some damn heart and passion for the game. If you are only a fan of team or player(s) when they win, and don't watch or care about them when they are losing but at least are trying their hardest, then that's being a bandwagoner, not a true fan.
I'm not sure of the relevance. Naniwa was never going to go all out trying to win and neither was Nestea. We were not deprived of that. It would not have been competition.
To your point though, I'd argue that it's possible to simply be a fan of good play. It doesn't make you a glory hound or a bandwagoner if you just like to see good players play well.
Do you honestly believe that Nestea wasn't going into that match with the mindset of 'I'm gonna beat the asshat down' after all the drama that's gone down between them at MLG, even if the match was pointless. That right there is the difference between Nestea and Nani cause regardless of whether the match mattered or not, I'd be willing to bet that Nestea sure as hell wanted to win.
There was no way Nestea was going to be whipping out any real builds though. Why would he? There's nothing on the line and only a build to lose by doing it.
On December 13 2011 23:50 Arcane86 wrote: Does anyone remember how pissed off everyone was at Sjow v. White-Ra at Dreamhack Winter 2011? It was group stages and both players had been sealed out of advancement. In fact, it took place right after Sjow had been locked out in an extremely tense series. It was also late. The tournament had been running for >14hours, and Day[9] was going delirious on the other stream casting the most boring game of all time (1.5hr Happy v. ToD). Even Total Biscuit had started complaining about wanting to go to bed rather than cast Sjow v. White-Ra.
Sjow, likely pissed off about having to play a series that didn't matter just after losing his most important series of the night, executed a series of build that made no sense. This could have been a glorious TvP. But it was not. It was abundantly clear that neither player was playing to win. There was no glory. There was no honor at stake. There was no inspiring micro or beautiful positioning. Just two players who clearly had no more F***s to give.
Remember how outraged people were about this?
Oh right, they weren't.
Those were players that had been playing for 12 hours straight, to the point where even the casters were too exhausted to care anymore. How is that even remotely comparable to Naniwa who played 3 games and then didn't bother to play the 4th? And even then, SjoW used builds to take a quick win and White-Ra defended them despite there not being any reason to, their series went 2-3 with relatively long games despite the short term strategies being used. No-one could complain because they both still tried to win despite their exhaustion and lost position.
On December 14 2011 00:31 Slider954 wrote: The job of a pro whatever, be it footballer, baseball player, SC2 player is to COMPETE, not just win. Yes I want to see my favorite teams and/or players win of course. But primarily I want to see them try their damn hardest to win and show some damn heart and passion for the game. If you are only a fan of team or player(s) when they win, and don't watch or care about them when they are losing but at least are trying their hardest, then that's being a bandwagoner, not a true fan.
I'm not sure of the relevance. Naniwa was never going to go all out trying to win and neither was Nestea. We were not deprived of that. It would not have been competition.
To your point though, I'd argue that it's possible to simply be a fan of good play. It doesn't make you a glory hound or a bandwagoner if you just like to see good players play well.
Do you honestly believe that Nestea wasn't going into that match with the mindset of 'I'm gonna beat the asshat down' after all the drama that's gone down between them at MLG, even if the match was pointless. That right there is the difference between Nestea and Nani cause regardless of whether the match mattered or not, I'd be willing to bet that Nestea sure as hell wanted to win.
There was no way Nestea was going to be whipping out any real builds though. Why would he? There's nothing on the line and only a build to lose by doing it.
People over exaggerated the Nani v Nestea drama...I'm pretty sure Nestea doesn't hate Naniwa so much that he wants to crush him on stage for the sake of it.
And as Southlight correctly points out, as has Liquid'Tyler, neither player would be playing their best or using their best builds.
So yes I absolutely believe that Nestea's mindset going into that game wasn't that of determination to win.
These are also the same astros that in the last series of the season blasted the now world series winning cardinals, attempting to dash their chances of getting into the playoffs. I can understand your reasoning here because baseball is such a long season and being 49-96 would definitely make you not "try as hard." and I guess you could argue that the astros "had something to play for" in that last series. What I think is irking everyone is that sc2 pro's are often supported by teams in order to have a living. By simply throwing the game away and not attempting to make a decent showing you're saying that you don't care about the people that support you and you're gonna do what you want. This attitude is very arrogant, and it's really no wonder why a lot of fans, and koreans got upset at it. In my opinion, its the same reason people hate idra. Idra is a good player, extremely solid actually, but the arrogance that he shows when he loses or wins a game makes people dislike him. I think most people who follow sc2 really enjoy the game, and on some level wish they could have what people like nani/idra have, and the way that they treat their talent and ability makes these envious people really irritated. (could be something completely different in the eyes of a korean, don't have a lot of experience interacting with them.)
I do agree with you that the blizzard cup format is not player-minded. It's fan-base minded. Who in the world that follows sc2 wouldn't want to see a rematch of nestea/naniwa? instead we got a bronze game with top tier names.
Notice in football teams that are 0-14 keep playing? Naniwa's a quitter that's all that comes down to it, and what little amount of respect any Korean had for him before is now gone. Code S is surely not going to be fun for him.
Its more about ethics than pragmatics. As a progamer, someone paid to be seen by fans and whose sponsors rely on such dynamics, Players owe the fans a minimun amount of effort and respect. To put it simply, can you imagine WhiteRa doing it? No, right? That's why WhiteRa is loved all over the world.
On December 14 2011 00:54 Chinchillin wrote: Notice in football teams that are 0-14 keep playing? Naniwa's a quitter that's all that comes down to it, and what little amount of respect any Korean had for him before is now gone. Code S is surely not going to be fun for him.
Football teams that are 0-14 have jobs at stake. Literally. The majority of players are 0-14 teams will simply be out of a job by the next year, unless they show stuff. Dan Orlovsky survived the 0-16 Lions debacle because he showed some semblance of spark. Most of the other players are pretty much gone. Most don't expect the coaching staff to survive the 0-16 Colts, and I'd imagine a good chunk of the roster might be out of jobs too. They keep playing because unless they show potential, they're boned.
On December 14 2011 00:55 Chinchillin wrote: Not only that, people paid money to see these games. It's just fucking rude and wouldn't do anything negatively to him to play the game out.
People paid money to see good games, and got three games of Naniwa playing his heart out. The crux of this argument is that people pay to watch pre-season exhibition games, and are horrified when they find the game is a sham. Because that's what the last game was.
On December 13 2011 22:19 Itsmedudeman wrote: So let's say a team goes 0-X or just has a bad record. They're gonna play the last game of the season with 0 chance to make it in the playoffs. What do they do? They shit on everyone around them by fucking around. Let's say it was football. The other team's running back gets through and no one chases after him, no one does anything to even try to save a bit of their dignity and give fans who payed and stayed loyal a show or at least some sign of trying. Who would defend that as a fan?
That doesn't happen. Given that teams cannot simply concede a meaningless game or rush it to completion in the framework of pro-sports (games must last x amount of minutes, etc.), they simply find other means to accomplish the desired end.
Here are some common scenarios:
A losing team will field a sub-par lineup in a game they don't care to win. That means many back-up or reserve/farm-team players that won't have much of a chance against a real team. I'll use hockey as an example - a team without anything to play for besides draft position will simply start a lot of AHLers and a very green goaltender. Its win-win for the team. If they lose, they gain draft position. And regardless of the outcome, they gain valuable pro experience for their future players. And these guys will try to win - they just aren't in much of a position to do so. They want to prove themselves and make the most of the given opportunity, hence why the scenario you talked about in your post will not happen.
A winning team with a guaranteed spot in the standings will rest their starting lineup against a weaker team in order to preserve their health for the upcoming important playoff matches. What is rough about this is that these games will often carry heavy playoff implications for those on the outside looking in. It's not unheard of for one team to make the playoffs and another to miss out based on who gets to play the league-leaders at the end of the season and take what are, to a more than reasonable degree, free wins.
Both those scenarios happen every year in every sport. It's transparent as hell but no one complains. No one complains because it's common practice. And like I said, these are often games that matter. These games will determine the fate of some poor team's playoff existence - a team that's forced to helplessly watch as a bunch of minor-league scrubs getting whipped by a crappier team costs them their playoff spot. Playoff spots not only mean everything to the fans, but also millions and millions of dollars revenue to the teams.
So how is what Naniwa did that bad? It didn't affect anyone else in the tournament, it didn't artificially stall or boost the career of any other pro player. He did what athletes and teams have done for ages but in the framework provided by the game in which he competes. People are overreacting - especially the Koreans who have such a proud history of throwing games for their personal benefit in WCG over the years. And those games actually had real implications. What a load.
On December 13 2011 22:28 Crais wrote: In soccer last year Wolves fielded a weakened team on purpose vs Manchester United so that they could rest their players for a later game. Caused a shit storm, ticket refunds, fines.
EPL actually has a rule that says you must field a full strength side or something tho, unlike american sports
Wasn't it Blackpool, not the Wolves (both have orange jerseys)? I remember the manager of Blackpool had been in a verbal feud with the FA earlier, and threatend to play with their B-team to prove a point of some sort, which is why it caused such a stir. The incident with clubs putting unexperienced players on the field for less important games happens every week - just look at Premier League clubs' starting lineup in the FA Cup during the first rounds. They do the same in Premier League if they've got an important game in Champions League / Europe League (UEFA Cup) the same week..
.. shame people are making it their job to hate on NaNiwa, just because it's him.
Both. It happened to Blackpool last season. The wolves incident was during 2009/10 IIRC.
And in both cases the LMA and most managers and pundits were quite outspoken about how stupid it was to hand out fines for something like this.
Playing your B-team is not comparable to throwing the game. It is comparable to playing B-strategies. Morever, the rivalry aspect is what important, as it was a really shitty thing to do to Nestea who specifically had said that he wants to beat Naniwa. And Naniwa had also taunted him. People are of course overreacting with their demands to remove him from GSL but it seems to me like people are not able to distinguish between different levels of X. There are more options than playing your best strategies and throwing the game. You can play a standard strategy for example and thus not reveal anything you don't want to but still try to win. There are also more options than accepting what Naniwa did and demanding a ban. Namely that what he did was douchebaggery. And it is beyond me how anyone can deny that. Sure he had his reasons but people have their reasons to also not like him. I suppose it is his call, but if that's the game he wants to play, then he better be prepared for the reaction.
There are some pretty big flaws in your argument, but there are also some important (and also sad) points as well.
- This analogy doesn't fit, you are comparing apple to oranges. A worker rush in sc2, without lings, without marines, without cannons, bunker, zealots, ect - does not have an equivalent in baseball, as it is impossible to viably win with pure workers. Fielding players for the sake of fielding players even has merit. Doing something that has absolutely no chance of working ever does not.
The counter argument to this is that yes, a player can make the most pathetic mistakes possible and somehow loose to this type of attack, however, it can't be considered a real possibility rationally.
- You can't use the reasoning of "resting players for more important games" Naniwa has nothing important coming up, let alone anything so important he can't play 1 bo1 in some sort of competitive fashion.
- Your argument about rules for players is the only valid thing here. Sadly, there are many immature high level players. Even with nothing to gain from a performance like this (other than drama publicity), it can still happen. GOM and other tournaments should indeed make a ruling with consequences should any player do a worker rush, as it is basically the only out-right un-winnable strategy in SC2.
It should also be said that you are partially right about his team. I doubt there is anything written in Nani's contract that states he needs to at least put on a show, even though it is obviously implied that they would want him to. Stipulations like this need to be made in player contracts, less teams want this type of play to be represented of them
The part about fans though is where this is wrong. Their are no contracts and no rules with fans. Anyone who thought this was a big "fuck you" as a fan or supporter is completely justified to feel that way. And they would be justified even if they didn't have a legitimate reason, because they are fans...
In short, for me it's a sad realization that we actually need to have rules to prevent the most stupid possible things to happen.
I just registered to say that i completely agree with OP.
Naniwa didnt want to put any focus into a meaningless game, but was "forced" to play it (afaik).
If gameplay is justified by the ultimate goal of winning, why go through with games where you have nothing to win.
If you consider what naniwa did bad sportsmanship, or bad manner because he didnt deliver a good performance and entertainment, then dont we need to rethink how we see on early all-ins and cheeses? They certainly dont have a high level of entertainment but are justified by the fact that they (if they work) give the player a win. Then we're back to the fact that it's all about achievements and then playing out games that wont give you a single achievement seems meaningless.
Sorry for my terribad english, sporting a high fever here y'all.
IMO there is a huge difference between fielding B-team players in a not so important match and let them proof themself - those players usually try very hard in those games. It's their chance to show what they're capable of - and not trying at all.
On December 13 2011 22:19 Itsmedudeman wrote: So let's say a team goes 0-X or just has a bad record. They're gonna play the last game of the season with 0 chance to make it in the playoffs. What do they do? They shit on everyone around them by fucking around. Let's say it was football. The other team's running back gets through and no one chases after him, no one does anything to even try to save a bit of their dignity and give fans who payed and stayed loyal a show or at least some sign of trying. Who would defend that as a fan?
But you didint really pay to only watch Naniwa did you, I cant really see any dignity with doing a stupid allin and still lose, whats the point. Anyway like people said, if there is no meaning why even play
notice that i said play and not try, because he had nothing worth trying for
On December 13 2011 22:19 Itsmedudeman wrote: So let's say a team goes 0-X or just has a bad record. They're gonna play the last game of the season with 0 chance to make it in the playoffs. What do they do? They shit on everyone around them by fucking around. Let's say it was football. The other team's running back gets through and no one chases after him, no one does anything to even try to save a bit of their dignity and give fans who payed and stayed loyal a show or at least some sign of trying. Who would defend that as a fan?
But you didint really pay to only watch Naniwa did you, I cant really see any dignity with doing a stupid allin and still lose, whats the point. Anyway like people said, if there is no meaning why even play
notice that i said play and not try, because he had nothing worth trying for
Lol? Some people payed. But pay or not pay, fans watching from home would have been very upset. Your point is really not applicable at all.
Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
I always have fun discussing arguments I do not agree with, so let's start from the beginning.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote: It's September 21, 2011. The 49-96 Houston Astros are in Cincinnati, Ohio to play the 76-80 Reds. Both teams below the .500 mark, the game has no meaning whatsoever -- not for the Astros, not for the Reds, not for any other team in the division (NL Central).
As bad as the Astros were that season, they did have what could be deemed an A-lineup, a lineup consisting of their best players at each position. That was not the lineup they used on this Wednesday afternoon.
A typical full-time Major League hitter accrues in excess of 600 plate appearances in a single season. Here is a look at the lineup the Astros used along with each player's PA total:
Jordan Schafer, CF (118 PA) J.B. Shuck, RF (92 PA) J.D. Martinez, LF (226 PA) Carlos Lee, 1B (653 PA) Matt Downs, 2B (222 PA) Chris Johnson, 3B (405 PA) Clint Barmes, SS (495 PA) J.R. Towles, C (165 PA) Pitcher (pitchers get significantly fewer PA than position players, so this is irrelevant)
The average hitter in the lineup had about 300 PA, or half that of a full-time player. Needless to say, the Astros were intentionally putting out a sub-par lineup.
To prove that, let's look at their offensive production using a statistic called weighted on-base average (wOBA). The league average is between .310-.320.
Only two Astros made it above the .320 threshold. It is safe to say that the Astros were, uh, not trying their hardest to win that afternoon's game.
I bring this up because a controversy arose earlier after both Naniwa and Nestea went 0-3 in their group in the Blizzard Cup. With eight of ten matches already completed, the fates of both players were sealed, making their match-up in Game #9 meaningless. Naniwa chose, instead of playing out an irrelevant game, to rush with his six starting workers across the map of Antiga Shipyard towards Nestea's base. Needless to say, the probe rush did not succeed; Naniwa dropped to 0-4 while Nestea erased the goose egg in his wins column.
Quickly after the game, TL and Reddit were on fire with complaints from community members, claiming that Naniwa's behavior was immature and disrespectful. Some called for punishment to be levied from GOM; others angrily sent emails to Naniwa's new team, Quantic Gaming.
I seem to be in the minority thinking that Naniwa did nothing wrong, just as the Astros above did nothing wrong by putting out their "B-lineup" several months ago in the final weeks of the baseball season.
Batting averages, names, etc. etc.
Astros management is certainly aware that fielding a sub-par lineup increases the chances of losing the game, but as you've said winning the game is no longer their main priority. However, the difference between Naniwa and Astros management is that the latter uses the game to advance other agendas. Fielding B-teamers allows them to play games that are technically "major league" but have nothing at stake in terms of making the playoffs. Those players have the opportunity to gain experience as well as win games. Subsequently their performance on the field can be evaluated and judged for future reference.
Meanwhile Naniwa chose to do a probe rush because he did not want to play the game, and the reason for that is obvious. But he did not use the opportunity to test anything, to confirm a strategy, to blow off steam. Why did he even play the game if he had no intentions of winning and no other intentions altogether? Naniwa could have forfeited the match in a way that both expressed his dislike at the system yet was respectful towards GOM, Quantic, and Nestea. But he chose to do a strategy that, no matter what semantics you try to use, was expected to fail. .
In short, this part of the OP is simply wrong because it confuses intentions. Naniwa threw his game because there was nothing at stake FOR HIM (which must be stated in big letters before its importance gets obscured), the Astros risk losing more games to evaluate their opportunities for future success.
You've confusing two senses of "wrong", one associated with "legality" and the other with "immorality". Nothing Naniwa did was technically against the rules and I doubt anyone could build a case that a probe rush is expressly forbidden in a GSL game. Yet this doesn't answer the question of whether it was justified in the first place, such behavior should be imitated in similar future scenarios, and other players should do the same thing if so inclined. Watching pornography all day isn't against the law, but I would never do it simply because it was legal.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Completely pointless paragraph.
I don't like BO1s. I don't like group stages where players have to play games that mean nothing towards their advancement in a tournament. I don't like watching sloppy play from people who are supposed to be the best in the world. I don't like smelly people, rude girls, blisters on my feet, finishing art projects in the dead of night, missing out on drunken parties, washing my sheets. Yet I will inevitably be in less-than-ideal scenarios, faced with rules I don't agree with, doing necessary things I loathe, stuck in places that I have no control over. What matters is how I compose myself in them and the decisions I make.
Being a pro gamer is difficult. 99% of all jobs are difficult. HuK is a notable exception in terms of travel, so I don't see your point.
I understand you empathize with Naniwa, but in no way does empathy somehow translate into an excuse for his behavior. I endured physical and mental abuse as a child, does that absolve me if I abuse my own children? Causation does not equal justification in any circumstance, whatever your judgement may be.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote: Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies?
It is not a high-percentage strategy or a middle-percentage strategy or a low-percentage strategy. It can be described as a "you would probably be struck by lightning twice before this works" strategy. It has no advantage over any builds.
Any strategy has a non-zero chance at success, which makes your distinction between "valid" and "invalid" worthless. There is also a non-zero probability that I can phase through a wall by running into it, guess the winner of GSL 2032, and win games by making only one marine every 10 minutes. Yet no one would do these strategies and if they did do them they would attempt to micro while doing them.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:We need to have lines here, and they cannot be drawn arbitrarily. More importantly, they should be drawn officially. I don't see anywhere on the GOM website where they have official rules for their tournaments, but something like that should be addressed in written word. Such ruling does not exist in most (if not all) professional sports; teams are allowed to tank on purpose. This is especially prevalent in the NBA, when teams will intentionally lose to increase the probability that they get a good draft pick in the lottery. It happens in the NFL as well. In fact, the phrase "suck for Luck" refers to teams taking a dive every week so they are better suited to draft college quarterback Andrew Luck, currently at Stanford University.
The comparison to the NFL and NBA doesn't work for the most obvious reason of all: the tradition of throwing games to get better draft picks is not officially sanctioned or even recognized by the NFL itself. It's a deliberately dirty tactic that sharp minds can easily identify, one that unfortunately clashes with the image Goodell and the owners project and what fans want to believe about their team. It doesn't get punished because it's nearly impossible to prove and acknowledging it would raise an absolute shitstorm among the many interest groups involved. The public accepts it as a reality that cannot be controlled, not as a positive aspect of the game.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:A common refrain I've read is that Naniwa owes it to GOM, the sponsors, his team, the fans, etc. to play out the meaningless game. And that is just flat-out wrong. Naniwa's job is to win games -- that is, win games that matter. Winning that game against Nestea would not have done anything for Naniwa except earn a couple brownie points (in other words, nothing). And if it's not against official rules and the terms of his contract with Quantic Gaming, then again, he did nothing wrong. Likewise, fans who showed up to that Astros-Reds game on September 21 were not owed their money back. The sponsors were not refunded ad revenue, either (as some have suggested be done with GOM). That is the risk you take as a fan when you purchase tickets, and that is the risk you take as a business when you choose to advertise. Ultimately, if the fans and/or the sponsors do have a legitimate gripe about what happened, that is to be taken up with GOM, not Naniwa.
I agree that Naniwa should not have to play simply because of peer pressure. But this simply brings us back to why he even played it in the first place. He could have forfeited and made it clear that he did not want to play a game that personally meant nothing to him. Alternatively he could have sucked it up, played a normal game, won/lost and left. One of the reasons people are annoyed is because he neither stuck to a set of principles nor accepted an undesirable situation with any measure of grace. His decision was judged as childish and amplified by his previous attempts to become more respectable within the community. The haters will crow and feverishly point this out as the "real" Naniwa, the fans will attempt to pass it off as "funny" or "not serious" and other euphemisms that ignore Naniwa's history and what that means for his future.
GOM did not make him do a probe rush.
Once again, what is legal =/= what is right or desirable.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:As a fan, you can hate Naniwa for whatever reasons you want, legitimate or not. When we're dealing with a player's livelihood, however, we need to have rational, adult conversations, and I'm just not seeing any of that in the community. When you calm down, take a step back and examine the situation, you should see that Naniwa is taking entirely too much grief for what was ultimately a decision made in his best interest.
Classic example of missing the forest for the trees. You've gotten so focused on finding analogies and examples that mirror Naniwa's decision that you don't even understand why people are angry in the first place. It is certainly not rational to ignore the fans' reasons for feeling pissed before judging them as irrational.
On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote: Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
Dude 90% of the GSL finals were shit, once a player goes down 2 or 3 games changes are he wont win the last match, yet they don't get shit on for playing poorly maybe not on purpose but you cant know whether or not they did. For instance OGSinca did a dark templar expand 4 games in a row against Nestea and lost all 4 games, now the first 2 times he might have been trying that strategy out, in my opinion the 3rd and 4th game he was just depressed and purposely did a strategy he knew was shit and that Nestea knew about, thus OGSinca threw the game aswell. See what I did there? Jokes aside In my opinion when you are losing and losing over and over again annoying games you do get psycologically demontivated and can just throw games. In sport you can never know whether a team/player tries or not to win / lose on purpose unless you have evidence like in the CoCa case or if they openly do it. Yet, if you openly lose a USELESS match in my opinion it should not matter as this is a professional sport it is your benefits as a player to win games, if a progamer does not see benefits in winning a USELESS game then let him lose it, I mean he could've just left the Gom studios for all he cared and not even played, or played a normal game and just play shit on purpose in it and lose as he said in his interview. Point is you can't control players, you shouldn't control players and you should most definately NOT give shit to players for doing thing like that unless they are fixing games for PROFIT because that causes economic background markets which damage the finance of the industry.
On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote: Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
Two actions with the same outcome cannot just be qualified as equal; two actions with different intents but the same outcome are inherently different. But even if you disagree with that, I'll use your own definition then. You claim that if two outcomes are the same, then the actions can be qualified as equal.
I'll bet that if Naniwa forfeited 'officially,' then the outcome would be significantly different than it is now; specifically, backlash would be less. You can't just say that an 'irrational reaction' is somehow not a legitimate outcome from an action; a reaction is a reaction even if you can't understand the mechanics behind it and dismiss it as irrationality. Therefore, Naniwa's official forfeit and the current status quo cannot be qualified as equal under your definition.
It's funny because this has nothing to do with whether his actions were justified/legitimate anyway. Just a tangent that lead to nowhere.
On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote: Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
I don't have an argument. I'm merely showing that Crashburn's argument is not an argument at all. It's a series of comparisons and questionable premises that don't address the issue.
Whether Naniwa's actions were rational or irrational means nothing to me. I think Crashburn's argument is not rational, and I'm showing that it's not even logical.
Let me throw an extreme example at you. Suppose you are a ruler of a country and you find that your approval ratings have taken a dive in the last few months. You really want those ratings, so much that you make it the primary goal of your administration. Would you attempt to persuade the public that you're all sunshine and rainbows and teddy bears through public speeches and rallies and whatnot? Would you do the same thing via constant commercials and marketing? Would you allow yourself to be misrepresented in said commercials if it made people believe you were kind and caring? Would you pay people to say you were kind and caring? Would you intimidate people with the threat of punishment to boost your approval ratings?
Does the method matter at all as long as the results are accomplished? All of these methods are perfectly rational depending on your goals. In fact there is no accepted standard on what separates "rational" and "irrational" behavior, unless you are a positivist.
CosmicSpiral knows what he is talking about and I agree with him. It's a shame some people would use their job positions in defending their arguments when debating on the internet.
I absolutely agree with CosmicSpiral. I think that OP's point is very poorly argued and that it has only received this attention because of his position.
I actually agree that Naniwa doesn't deserve all of this rage over his decision, but I don't see the comparison to sports as relevant.
Exceptions should be made if you have a crippling mental state...in a recent interview this is what Naniwa mentioned. If this had been explained earlier I believe it would be an acceptable reason (to other people), and the controversy wouldn't exist. If the player truly feels like he/she can't play up to an acceptable standard, they should be allowed to forfeit. I think some of the confusion that arises when a player probe rushes, without explanation, is that people can view that as not respecting his opponent or the fans. Whereas with a forfeit you have a chance to explain why you no longer wish to play, or at least that's what I feel should take place.
But more fundamentally, do players morally owe anything to the fans/producers? I think that's really the problem here, in that many Koreans and foreigners think that they do. But to me I don't see why the player should owe anything to anyone...he/she should be allowed to play any games they want at their discretion. Conversely I think its the fans that are being selfish, in that they believe the pro-gamer must play games that may be meaningless for the fans' entertainment.
I feel like this is strongly reminiscent of the whole "gg"/BM stuff. If I'm not nice to someone else (but also not mean or negative in any way), does that make me a bad person? Surely not! Should I be attacked for not playing a game for the community? I think that's kind of wrong. I don't think anyone can claim that pro-gamers have an obligation to please the fans. It is indeed a nice thing to do to play a game for them, but that's just like any other nice thing people do voluntarily for others.
That said if I was in his position the overwhelming sense that I'm being watched by tens of thousands of people (and later through vods a lot more) would pressure me to try to please them by showing good games. I guess I'd be afraid of the reaction if I didn't do what a "mannered" pro gamer normally does. Its kind of like peer pressure.
On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote: Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision. An irrational action is like raging like a retard on blogs because a few people said rather retarded things to you and reacting emotionally and not thinking through of consequences.
Actually, let's agree that Naniwa *was* rational. Then his actions are even more insulting because he still chose the option that made a mockery of everyone involved publicly. If he had just told GOM he's forfeiting the last match it would have been covered up nicely by GOM as "well there's no point in playing the last match...". He deliberately chose this option because it's more of a public mockery. Then are the fans irrational for calling him out for it?
It's clear Naniwa was being irrational and his actions had very unintended consequences he was probably unaware of given that he's from a far different culture. Yes, fans are outraged, Koreans are insulted because turns out Naniwa is a bounty hunter instead of what they call a "progamer". Yes, people will react to what they see in their own perspective and not yours because they all have their own definitions that they will stick to no matter what kind of definitions you want to use. Their outrage is rational given their expectations.
So drop the fucking pretense because you're no better than anyone else being outraged at this situation.
I don't understand people saying he is not a progamer. He gets payed to play the game because he is really good right? Now I don't necessarily agree with Naniwa doing what he did, but the thing that bothers me is that people are trying to say that he shouldn't be called a progamer. If all the progamers were super mannered etc like the koreans then watching this game would be boring. I personally find alot of entertainment from Naniwa's antics! I think people should chill out. I tune in to watch Naniwa, but I don't tune in to watch other foreign progamers, because Naniwa is one of my favorite players regardless of the way he acts etc. In fact, his drive for winning and his complete disregard for non-important matches is part of what makes him such an interesting and awesome player to me. In the end everyone is different, and we enjoy, and react differently to different personalities etc. In the end, thousands of people are still going to want to watch Naniwa, and his sponsors are going to get good publicity because he is good and wins, and many people like his "I don't care about anything except winning" attitude.
There are many players that are controversial for many different reasons... whether it is they are actually not that good, or because they are anti social etc. I for one don't want to see only mannered and thoughtful respectul players in the tournaments I watch. I want to have a chance of seeing something crazy and/or irrational.
On December 13 2011 22:29 coddan wrote: There are more factors in real sports than Starcraft. When an unimportant game is coming up you use that game to field inexperienced player, to test them and let the gain some match experience. You don't use all your best players to rest them and to not risk injury for nothing. While the internet certainly is flipping its shit over nothing, these are not comparable situations.
That's a tiny part of it sure. If they REALLY want some of their rookies to get experience. They'll pull one of them at a time onto the starting lineup.
In reality though. You really really want to give your players the rest and thusly you never let your players strain yourself over something totally meaningless.
On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote: Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision. An irrational action is like raging like a retard on blogs because a few people said rather retarded things to you and reacting emotionally and not thinking through of consequences.
Actually, let's agree that Naniwa *was* rational. Then his actions are even more insulting because he still chose the option that made a mockery of everyone involved publicly. If he had just told GOM he's forfeiting the last match it would have been covered up nicely by GOM as "well there's no point in playing the last match...". He deliberately chose this option because it's more of a public mockery. Then are the fans irrational for calling him out for it?
It's clear Naniwa was being irrational and his actions had very unintended consequences he was probably unaware of given that he's from a far different culture. Yes, fans are outraged, Koreans are insulted because turns out Naniwa is a bounty hunter instead of what they call a "progamer". Yes, people will react to what they see in their own perspective and not yours because they all have their own definitions that they will stick to no matter what kind of definitions you want to use. Their outrage is rational given their expectations.
So drop the fucking pretense because you're no better than anyone else being outraged at this situation.
I think both of you didn't read the interview between naniwa/tl.
On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote: Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
I don't have an argument. I'm merely showing that Crashburn's argument is not an argument at all. It's a series of comparisons and questionable premises that don't address the issue.
Whether Naniwa's actions were rational or irrational means nothing to me. I think Crashburn's argument is not rational, and I'm showing that it's not even logical.
Let me throw an extreme example at you. Suppose you are a ruler of a country and you find that your approval ratings have taken a dive in the last few months. You really want those ratings, so much that you make it the primary goal of your administration. Would you attempt to persuade the public that you're all sunshine and rainbows and teddy bears through public speeches and rallies and whatnot? Would you do the same thing via constant commercials and marketing? Would you allow yourself to be misrepresented in said commercials if it made people believe you were kind and caring? Would you pay people to say you were kind and caring? Would you intimidate people with the threat of punishment to boost your approval ratings?
Does the method matter at all as long as the results are accomplished? All of these methods are perfectly rational depending on your goals. In fact there is no accepted standard on what separates "rational" and "irrational" behavior, unless you are a positivist.
Fairly sure the transitive property of money and time investment + emotional fallout is applicable to all competitive walks of life within humanity. Your hyperbolic remark does nothing to resolve but only serves to obfusticate the basic issue of. "I'm angry, I wasted time, I lost games I shouldn't have and I just want to go home".
If he had just told GOM he's forfeiting the last match it would have been covered up nicely by GOM as "well there's no point in playing the last match...".
Do you have a source that he had the option to forfeit the match?
I've seen multiple people bring this up but nothing to back it up.
P.S I'm not on anyones side here, just want to know the whole story.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Completely pointless paragraph.
You're full of shit, it's not pointless.
As a fan of professional SC2 and an employee at a tech company, I have work to do, and watching a pointless game where the players have no incentive to win is bullshit. I'd rather watch someone's stream.
But more fundamentally, do players morally owe anything to the fans/producers? I think that's really the problem here, in that many Koreans and foreigners think that they do. But to me I don't see why the player should owe anything to anyone...he/she should be allowed to play any games they want at their discretion. Conversely I think its the fans that are being selfish, in that they believe the pro-gamer must play games that may be meaningless for the fans' entertainment.
I feel like this is strongly reminiscent of the whole "gg"/BM stuff. If I'm not nice to someone else (but also not mean or negative in any way), does that make me a bad person? Surely not! Should I be attacked for not playing a game for the community? I think that's kind of wrong. I don't think anyone can claim that pro-gamers have an obligation to please the fans. It is indeed a nice thing to do to play a game for them, but that's just like any other nice thing people do voluntarily for others.
That said if I was in his position the overwhelming sense that I'm being watched by tens of thousands of people (and later through vods a lot more) would pressure me to try to please them by showing good games. I guess I'd be afraid of the reaction if I didn't do what a "mannered" pro gamer normally does. Its kind of like peer pressure.
I disagree because without fans and producers "pros" are nothing more than guys who are good at a game. Their play validates our admiration and love for them, but the fans and the people who organize/run tournaments give them the stage on which they shine. All spectator sports have this give-and-take philosophy on some level.
On December 14 2011 03:03 Schwang wrote: I don't understand people saying he is not a progamer. He gets payed to play the game because he is really good right? Now I don't necessarily agree with Naniwa doing what he did, but the thing that bothers me is that people are trying to say that he shouldn't be called a progamer. If all the progamers were super mannered etc like the koreans then watching this game would be boring. I personally find alot of entertainment from Naniwa's antics! I think people should chill out. I tune in to watch Naniwa, but I don't tune in to watch other foreign progamers, because Naniwa is one of my favorite players regardless of the way he acts etc. In fact, his drive for winning and his complete disregard for non-important matches is part of what makes him such an interesting and awesome player to me. In the end everyone is different, and we enjoy, and react differently to different personalities etc. In the end, thousands of people are still going to want to watch Naniwa, and his sponsors are going to get good publicity because he is good and wins, and many people like his "I don't care about anything except winning" attitude.
There are many players that are controversial for many different reasons... whether it is they are actually not that good, or because they are anti social etc. I for one don't want to see only mannered and thoughtful respectul players in the tournaments I watch. I want to have a chance of seeing something crazy and/or irrational.
...
Antics? He was psychologically crippled from those losses. Personally I don't find pleasure when watching someone self-destruct on a public stage. But maybe when Firebathero was dancing in front of the crowd, he was just going through hallucinations and that made it funnier.
IMO, being rational or irrational has nothing to do with the discussion. If we were to discuss what rationality and irrationality are, we would get way off-topic and see that things aren't that simple.
It's simple to me: competition and sportmanship is the soul of esport. So I dislike a lot what. I don't care if the match had no value, it's no excuse.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Completely pointless paragraph.
You're full of shit, it's not pointless.
As a fan of professional SC2 and an employee at a tech company, I have work to do, and watching a pointless game where the players have no incentive to win is bullshit. I'd rather watch someone's stream.
Thanks for not wasting my goddamn time, Naniwa.
I can tell it's pointless since you don't care whether any information in the paragraph is relevant to the OP's message, but you care about how much it threatens your identity as a fan and an employee at a tech company. And since I personally don't like having filler games in group stages (and I mentioned this), I guess that just makes you look even dumber for cursing me out.
On December 14 2011 03:24 shostakovich wrote: IMO, being rational or irrational has nothing to do with the discussion. If we were to discuss what rationality and irrationality are, we would get way off-topic and see that things aren't that simple.
It's simple to me: competition and sportmanship is the soul of esport. So I dislike a lot what. I don't care if the match had no value, it's no excuse.
The OP's message relies on the idea that his argument is devoid of knee-jerk reactions and emotional judgment; it supposedly relies on facts and reasoning.
It's simple to me: competition and sportmanship is the soul of esport. So I dislike a lot what. I don't care if the match had no value, it's no excuse.
I disagree.
Entertainment is the soul of esports. What Naniwa did today was infinitely more entertaining than some meaningless match with nothing behind it.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Completely pointless paragraph.
You're full of shit, it's not pointless.
As a fan of professional SC2 and an employee at a tech company, I have work to do, and watching a pointless game where the players have no incentive to win is bullshit. I'd rather watch someone's stream.
Thanks for not wasting my goddamn time, Naniwa.
I can tell it's pointless since you don't care whether any information in the paragraph is relevant to the OP's message, but you care about how much it threatens your identity as a fan and an employee at a tech company. And since I personally don't like having filler games in group stages (and I mentioned this), I guess that just makes you look even dumber for cursing me out.
On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote: Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
I don't have an argument. I'm merely showing that Crashburn's argument is not an argument at all. It's a series of comparisons and questionable premises that don't address the issue.
Whether Naniwa's actions were rational or irrational means nothing to me. I think Crashburn's argument is not rational, and I'm showing that it's not even logical.
Let me throw an extreme example at you. Suppose you are a ruler of a country and you find that your approval ratings have taken a dive in the last few months. You really want those ratings, so much that you make it the primary goal of your administration. Would you attempt to persuade the public that you're all sunshine and rainbows and teddy bears through public speeches and rallies and whatnot? Would you do the same thing via constant commercials and marketing? Would you allow yourself to be misrepresented in said commercials if it made people believe you were kind and caring? Would you pay people to say you were kind and caring? Would you intimidate people with the threat of punishment to boost your approval ratings?
Does the method matter at all as long as the results are accomplished? All of these methods are perfectly rational depending on your goals. In fact there is no accepted standard on what separates "rational" and "irrational" behavior, unless you are a positivist.
Fairly sure the transitive property of money and time investment + emotional fallout is applicable to all competitive walks of life within humanity. Your hyperbolic remark does nothing to resolve but only serves to obfusticate the basic issue of. "I'm angry, I wasted time, I lost games I shouldn't have and I just want to go home".
The example lists a goal and methods that gradually progress from one end of the moral spectrum to the other. If Mecker really believes in his spiel, then he won't reject any of the methods unless they clash with one of his auxiliary goals (e.g. convince public without shedding blood). Apply the same principles to Naniwa's case with less florid alternatives.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Completely pointless paragraph.
You're full of shit, it's not pointless.
As a fan of professional SC2 and an employee at a tech company, I have work to do, and watching a pointless game where the players have no incentive to win is bullshit. I'd rather watch someone's stream.
Thanks for not wasting my goddamn time, Naniwa.
I can tell it's pointless since you don't care whether any information in the paragraph is relevant to the OP's message, but you care about how much it threatens your identity as a fan and an employee at a tech company. And since I personally don't like having filler games in group stages (and I mentioned this), I guess that just makes you look even dumber for cursing me out.
On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote: Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
I always have fun discussing arguments I do not agree with, so let's start from the beginning.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote: It's September 21, 2011. The 49-96 Houston Astros are in Cincinnati, Ohio to play the 76-80 Reds. Both teams below the .500 mark, the game has no meaning whatsoever -- not for the Astros, not for the Reds, not for any other team in the division (NL Central).
As bad as the Astros were that season, they did have what could be deemed an A-lineup, a lineup consisting of their best players at each position. That was not the lineup they used on this Wednesday afternoon.
A typical full-time Major League hitter accrues in excess of 600 plate appearances in a single season. Here is a look at the lineup the Astros used along with each player's PA total:
Jordan Schafer, CF (118 PA) J.B. Shuck, RF (92 PA) J.D. Martinez, LF (226 PA) Carlos Lee, 1B (653 PA) Matt Downs, 2B (222 PA) Chris Johnson, 3B (405 PA) Clint Barmes, SS (495 PA) J.R. Towles, C (165 PA) Pitcher (pitchers get significantly fewer PA than position players, so this is irrelevant)
The average hitter in the lineup had about 300 PA, or half that of a full-time player. Needless to say, the Astros were intentionally putting out a sub-par lineup.
To prove that, let's look at their offensive production using a statistic called weighted on-base average (wOBA). The league average is between .310-.320.
Only two Astros made it above the .320 threshold. It is safe to say that the Astros were, uh, not trying their hardest to win that afternoon's game.
I bring this up because a controversy arose earlier after both Naniwa and Nestea went 0-3 in their group in the Blizzard Cup. With eight of ten matches already completed, the fates of both players were sealed, making their match-up in Game #9 meaningless. Naniwa chose, instead of playing out an irrelevant game, to rush with his six starting workers across the map of Antiga Shipyard towards Nestea's base. Needless to say, the probe rush did not succeed; Naniwa dropped to 0-4 while Nestea erased the goose egg in his wins column.
Quickly after the game, TL and Reddit were on fire with complaints from community members, claiming that Naniwa's behavior was immature and disrespectful. Some called for punishment to be levied from GOM; others angrily sent emails to Naniwa's new team, Quantic Gaming.
I seem to be in the minority thinking that Naniwa did nothing wrong, just as the Astros above did nothing wrong by putting out their "B-lineup" several months ago in the final weeks of the baseball season.
Batting averages, names, etc. etc.
Astros management is certainly aware that fielding a sub-par lineup increases the chances of losing the game, but as you've said winning the game is no longer their main priority. However, the difference between Naniwa and Astros management is that the latter uses the game to advance other agendas. Fielding B-teamers allows them to play games that are technically "major league" but have nothing at stake in terms of making the playoffs. Those players have the opportunity to gain experience as well as win games. Subsequently their performance on the field can be evaluated and judged for future reference.
Meanwhile Naniwa chose to do a probe rush because he did not want to play the game, and the reason for that is obvious. But he did not use the opportunity to test anything, to confirm a strategy, to blow off steam. Why did he even play the game if he had no intentions of winning and no other intentions altogether? Naniwa could have forfeited the match in a way that both expressed his dislike at the system yet was respectful towards GOM, Quantic, and Nestea. But he chose to do a strategy that, no matter what semantics you try to use, was expected to fail. .
In short, this part of the OP is simply wrong because it confuses intentions. Naniwa threw his game because there was nothing at stake FOR HIM (which must be stated in big letters before its importance gets obscured), the Astros risk losing more games to evaluate their opportunities for future success.
You've confusing two senses of "wrong", one associated with "legality" and the other with "immorality". Nothing Naniwa did was technically against the rules and I doubt anyone could build a case that a probe rush is expressly forbidden in a GSL game. Yet this doesn't answer the question of whether it was justified in the first place, such behavior should be imitated in similar future scenarios, and other players should do the same thing if so inclined. Watching pornography all day isn't against the law, but I would never do it simply because it was legal.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Completely pointless paragraph.
I don't like BO1s. I don't like group stages where players have to play games that mean nothing towards their advancement in a tournament. I don't like watching sloppy play from people who are supposed to be the best in the world. I don't like smelly people, rude girls, blisters on my feet, finishing art projects in the dead of night, missing out on drunken parties, washing my sheets. Yet I will inevitably be in less-than-ideal scenarios, faced with rules I don't agree with, doing necessary things I loathe, stuck in places that I have no control over. What matters is how I compose myself in them and the decisions I make.
Being a pro gamer is difficult. 99% of all jobs are difficult. HuK is a notable exception in terms of travel, so I don't see your point.
I understand you empathize with Naniwa, but in no way does empathy somehow translate into an excuse for his behavior. I endured physical and mental abuse as a child, does that absolve me if I abuse my own children? Causation does not equal justification in any circumstance, whatever your judgement may be.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote: Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies?
It is not a high-percentage strategy or a middle-percentage strategy or a low-percentage strategy. It can be described as a "you would probably be struck by lightning twice before this works" strategy. It has no advantage over any builds.
Any strategy has a non-zero chance at success, which makes your distinction between "valid" and "invalid" worthless. There is also a non-zero probability that I can phase through a wall by running into it, guess the winner of GSL 2032, and win games by making only one marine every 10 minutes. Yet no one would do these strategies and if they did do them they would attempt to micro while doing them.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:We need to have lines here, and they cannot be drawn arbitrarily. More importantly, they should be drawn officially. I don't see anywhere on the GOM website where they have official rules for their tournaments, but something like that should be addressed in written word. Such ruling does not exist in most (if not all) professional sports; teams are allowed to tank on purpose. This is especially prevalent in the NBA, when teams will intentionally lose to increase the probability that they get a good draft pick in the lottery. It happens in the NFL as well. In fact, the phrase "suck for Luck" refers to teams taking a dive every week so they are better suited to draft college quarterback Andrew Luck, currently at Stanford University.
The comparison to the NFL and NBA doesn't work for the most obvious reason of all: the tradition of throwing games to get better draft picks is not officially sanctioned or even recognized by the NFL itself. It's a deliberately dirty tactic that sharp minds can easily identify, one that unfortunately clashes with the image Goodell and the owners project and what fans want to believe about their team. It doesn't get punished because it's nearly impossible to prove and acknowledging it would raise an absolute shitstorm among the many interest groups involved. The public accepts it as a reality that cannot be controlled, not as a positive aspect of the game.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:A common refrain I've read is that Naniwa owes it to GOM, the sponsors, his team, the fans, etc. to play out the meaningless game. And that is just flat-out wrong. Naniwa's job is to win games -- that is, win games that matter. Winning that game against Nestea would not have done anything for Naniwa except earn a couple brownie points (in other words, nothing). And if it's not against official rules and the terms of his contract with Quantic Gaming, then again, he did nothing wrong. Likewise, fans who showed up to that Astros-Reds game on September 21 were not owed their money back. The sponsors were not refunded ad revenue, either (as some have suggested be done with GOM). That is the risk you take as a fan when you purchase tickets, and that is the risk you take as a business when you choose to advertise. Ultimately, if the fans and/or the sponsors do have a legitimate gripe about what happened, that is to be taken up with GOM, not Naniwa.
I agree that Naniwa should not have to play simply because of peer pressure. But this simply brings us back to why he even played it in the first place. He could have forfeited and made it clear that he did not want to play a game that personally meant nothing to him. Alternatively he could have sucked it up, played a normal game, won/lost and left. One of the reasons people are annoyed is because he neither stuck to a set of principles nor accepted an undesirable situation with any measure of grace. His decision was judged as childish and amplified by his previous attempts to become more respectable within the community. The haters will crow and feverishly point this out as the "real" Naniwa, the fans will attempt to pass it off as "funny" or "not serious" and other euphemisms that ignore Naniwa's history and what that means for his future.
GOM did not make him do a probe rush.
Once again, what is legal =/= what is right or desirable.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:As a fan, you can hate Naniwa for whatever reasons you want, legitimate or not. When we're dealing with a player's livelihood, however, we need to have rational, adult conversations, and I'm just not seeing any of that in the community. When you calm down, take a step back and examine the situation, you should see that Naniwa is taking entirely too much grief for what was ultimately a decision made in his best interest.
Classic example of missing the forest for the trees. You've gotten so focused on finding analogies and examples that mirror Naniwa's decision that you don't even understand why people are angry in the first place. It is certainly not rational to ignore the fans' reasons for feeling pissed before judging them as irrational.
Great post. Rationality =/= there.
I think a simpler argument though is what Incontroll and catz have said/implied. By the nature of its competitions, it is very difficult to be a dominant champion in StarCraft. Very few can do that. Still you add value by doing well in tournaments and building a fan base which in turn funds your tournament runs. What happened here is like a soccer team scoring goals on its own net in a friendly which fans bought tickets for. There are plenty of people who probably stayed up later than they should to support nani or see an epic rematch between nani and nestea. There was a storyline which while there was no direct reward would have offered something to the developing scene. Sc2 is an entertainment business. You get the fanbase and support you deserve.
so what, the guys that played swung at everything even if it was clearly a ball? Just cause you don't play your best lineup doesn't mean they're not trying. Naniwa didn't even bother to try.
You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision.
Yea, that would be like if someone wrote a blog bashing the SC2 community, saying BW was the only real esport and was then shocked and upset when said SC2 community fires back at him....oh wait.
[QUOTE]On December 14 2011 04:06 g35nole wrote: [QUOTE]On December 14 2011 02:49 Milkis wrote:
You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision.
Yea, that would be like if someone wrote a blog bashing the SC2 community, saying BW was the only real esport and was then shocked and upset when said SC2 community fires back at him....oh wait. [/QUOTE]
Milkis is so Korean biased that arguing with him will always be pointless.
You are comparing two totally different things. I can promise you the players in your example played as best as they could that game. They tried to get hits, to get on base, to make plays in the field. They controlled what they could control. They can't mandate who plays in the game or how well the manager chooses to manage that game. You have to compare player to player to draw any reliable conclusions.
If you can't give one game your all on the world's biggest stage vs. one of the best players in the world then you don't have any pride or competitive bone in your body. Since when is a match only worth playing if the result is someone winning $50k?
I am somewhat surprised at how many people are upset. Was Naniwa immature? Yes. But so long as it did not go against some contractual statement from either GOM or Quantic, it is what it is. The only difference would be placing next to last instead of last in the group (I don't believe there was a difference in money won). People if you don't like this just move on and don't let it ruin your day.
Naniwa has shown time and time again that the only thing he cares about is winning and making money. He cares nothing of furthering the sport. His argument is pathetic. You should never visibly "stop-trying" in a professional/televised match. However to be fair, he is correct. If he would have 4 gated, nothing would have been said.
Naniwa doesn't get that doing the things he does (probe rushing, bad interviews, etc) actually hurt the credibility of e-sports. Other professional sports teams play time and time again in "pointless" games, however they play them and they play them with a decent amount of effort. Sure they might try harder if things were on the line, but they still want to win. It's about pride. Possibly even more than that, it's about credibility and heart of the game. No one wants to put money into a league where everyone except the top teams/players start quitting because they have little to no chance of advancing. If that were the case, every single sporting format would be something like elimination style tournaments, there would be no "seasons." Leagues and especially teams need to start coaching players on proper professional etiquette if eSports is to continue to grow at the rate it has been. There are no excuses for things like that anymore. We're so close to the big leagues, it would be a shame for something like that to hold us back.
To even play the other side, say Naniwa does really only care about winning money. It wouldn't even be in his best interest to play the way he did. For starters, its not like he's worried about wasting time as he'll probably watch some or the rest of the tournament (vs. going straight to practice or another event). Second, to play in that way is an obvious deterrent from endorsement/sponsorship prospects. No one would want to sponsor a player who doesn't play out their matches, even meaningless ones. While yes, maybe 1/8 (random percentage) of viewers would watch a game that doesn't matter, you are still getting viewers and sponsors are still getting air time. To add to that, I'm sure a lot of people tuned in anyways as he was playing Nestea. If he plays an extraordinary game and say crushes Nestea, people will still talk about that match. It will improve his public perception of how good of a player he is. While pros know that the match really doesn't mean anything, in the public eye a win over Nestea is a win over Nestea. When people talk about Nani, people talk about his sponsors and that's the kind of thing sponsors are attracted to. If he plays a close set, pulls out unorthodox builds, etc. people will STILL talk about it. Naniwa has to realize that a player of his caliber will get media no matter what. So to limit his time on air ACTUALLY HURTS his sponsorship prospects and ACTUALLY HURTS his chances of getting more money.
There is absolutely no downside to playing out that match. Other players may be able to get away with throwing games or not trying, but when the public eye is on you so finely, you have to know what's best for your career. Sure you're angry, sure you're upset, but suck it up and realize that you're part of something bigger than yourself.
On December 14 2011 04:22 XIJABERWALKIX wrote: There is absolutely no downside to playing out that match.
Of course there is a downside to playing the match. Off the top of my head I can come up with two:
1. Playing the match would force the fans to wait an extra 20-40 minutes before getting to see the players who are making it further in the tournament. Do you have any idea how many tournaments lose viewers when they put the 3rd-4th place matches before the final matches? (or, god help them, tournaments that put on other games between matches, like Dreamhack winter foolishly attempted) There's a reason why MLG's format has gotten them the most number of concurrent viewers of any league.
2. Naniwa playing the game for real would give Nestea the ability to get a better feel for Naniwa's playstyle, as well as give other good zergs an idea of Naniwa's strategy against good zerg players.
On December 14 2011 04:22 XIJABERWALKIX wrote: There is absolutely no downside to playing out that match.
Of course there is a downside to playing the match. Off the top of my head I can come up with two:
1. Playing the match would force the fans to wait an extra 20-40 minutes before getting to see the players who are making it further in the tournament. Do you have any idea how many tournaments lose viewers when they put the 3rd-4th place matches before the final matches? There's a reason why MLG's format has gotten them the most number of concurrent viewers of any league.
2. Naniwa playing the game for real would give Nestea the ability to get a better feel for Naniwa's playstyle, as well as give other good zergs an idea of Naniwa's strategy against good zerg players.
Your 1st point makes complete sense and I agree that tournaments need to find a way to improve their system. However your second point I don't agree with. With so many tournaments that both players play, ladder, VODs/replays as well as living in the same house for a time (if I'm not mistaken), I doubt that they don't know each other's play styles by now. I'm not saying use your best strategy vs Nestea or pull out something you've been saving up, I'm just saying make it look respectable. Even a 4 gate would really suffice.
On December 14 2011 04:22 XIJABERWALKIX wrote: There is absolutely no downside to playing out that match.
Of course there is a downside to playing the match. Off the top of my head I can come up with two:
1. Playing the match would force the fans to wait an extra 20-40 minutes before getting to see the players who are making it further in the tournament. Do you have any idea how many tournaments lose viewers when they put the 3rd-4th place matches before the final matches? There's a reason why MLG's format has gotten them the most number of concurrent viewers of any league.
2. Naniwa playing the game for real would give Nestea the ability to get a better feel for Naniwa's playstyle, as well as give other good zergs an idea of Naniwa's strategy against good zerg players.
I'm not saying use your best strategy vs Nestea or pull out something you've been saving up, I'm just saying make it look respectable. Even a 4 gate would really suffice.
Eh, that seems lame. I'd rather see an actual game that matters than a deceptive 4gate. GOM should have just cancelled the match, since there was no incentive for the players.
On December 14 2011 04:22 XIJABERWALKIX wrote: Naniwa has shown time and time again that the only thing he cares about is winning and making money. He cares nothing of furthering the sport. His argument is pathetic. You should never visibly "stop-trying" in a professional/televised match. However to be fair, he is correct. If he would have 4 gated, nothing would have been said.
So what if he only cares about making money? Are you going to go rant to the shop clerk that he's not motivated enough to do his job for free? Naniwa plays SC2 FOR A LIVING, not for your entertainment. I admit that furthering esports is a noble cause, but so is helping homeless people and yet you don't expect any of the progamers to do that, do you?
Naniwa doesn't get that doing the things he does (probe rushing, bad interviews, etc) actually hurt the credibility of e-sports. Other professional sports teams play time and time again in "pointless" games, however they play them and they play them with a decent amount of effort. Sure they might try harder if things were on the line, but they still want to win. It's about pride. Possibly even more than that, it's about credibility and heart of the game. No one wants to put money into a league where everyone except the top teams/players start quitting because they have little to no chance of advancing. If that were the case, every single sporting format would be something like elimination style tournaments, there would be no "seasons." Leagues and especially teams need to start coaching players on proper professional etiquette if eSports is to continue to grow at the rate it has been. There are no excuses for things like that anymore. We're so close to the big leagues, it would be a shame for something like that to hold us back.
This has nothing to do with credibility of esports. It does however have everything to do with tournament formats. Why do we have matches that have nothing on the line? I'm thinking whoever came up with this tournament format was either 1) ignorant to the fact that this could happen. or 2) thinking that these "extra" matches could bring more views or whatever. There are plenty of ways to make matches of low importance still matter. You can look at any real sports league and see how it is done there.
To even play the other side, say Naniwa does really only care about winning money. It wouldn't even be in his best interest to play the way he did. For starters, its not like he's worried about wasting time as he'll probably watch some or the rest of the tournament (vs. going straight to practice or another event). Second, to play in that way is an obvious deterrent from endorsement/sponsorship prospects. No one would want to sponsor a player who doesn't play out their matches, even meaningless ones. While yes, maybe 1/8 (random percentage) of viewers would watch a game that doesn't matter, you are still getting viewers and sponsors are still getting air time. To add to that, I'm sure a lot of people tuned in anyways as he was playing Nestea. If he plays an extraordinary game and say crushes Nestea, people will still talk about that match. It will improve his public perception of how good of a player he is. While pros know that the match really doesn't mean anything, in the public eye a win over Nestea is a win over Nestea. When people talk about Nani, people talk about his sponsors and that's the kind of thing sponsors are attracted to. If he plays a close set, pulls out unorthodox builds, etc. people will STILL talk about it. Naniwa has to realize that a player of his caliber will get media no matter what. So to limit his time on air ACTUALLY HURTS his sponsorship prospects and ACTUALLY HURTS his chances of getting more money.
So lets say that Naniwa had actually played normally in that game. A generic macro game, which had NOTHING on the line, versus the situation we're in now. Have a look at google trends in a few days and you will see that his probe rush got him FAR more attenttion than whatever normal game he could've played against nestea.
There is absolutely no downside to playing out that match. Other players may be able to get away with throwing games or not trying, but when the public eye is on you so finely, you have to know what's best for your career. Sure you're angry, sure you're upset, but suck it up and realize that you're part of something bigger than yourself.
No downside? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/NaNiwa#Nestea If i was in Naniwa's shoes i'd have not played a proper game either. Nestea still had incentive to "show him", while Naniwa had nothing to win there. Rather do something stupid than give Nestea the confidence boost that might benefit him in future engagements.
His job is to represent his team and sponsors. The sponsors pay his salary, expenses etc. etc. They don't want him to just win. They want him to represent their brand. He is an advertising tool. In most instances, this equates to winning games and getting recognition. But it is by no means absolute.
I do agree with everything else you said though. And you point still stands.
[QUOTE]On December 14 2011 04:06 g35nole wrote: [QUOTE]On December 14 2011 02:49 Milkis wrote:
You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision.
Yea, that would be like if someone wrote a blog bashing the SC2 community, saying BW was the only real esport and was then shocked and upset when said SC2 community fires back at him....oh wait. [/QUOTE] Irrational would be expecting people to actually read what was written before taking shots about it. Or expecting people to read the next sentence even.
[QUOTE]On December 14 2011 06:46 Milkis wrote: [QUOTE]On December 14 2011 04:06 g35nole wrote: [QUOTE]On December 14 2011 02:49 Milkis wrote:
You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision.
Yea, that would be like if someone wrote a blog bashing the SC2 community, saying BW was the only real esport and was then shocked and upset when said SC2 community fires back at him....oh wait. [/QUOTE] Irrational would be expecting people to actually read what was written before taking shots about it. Or expecting people to read the next sentence even. [/QUOTE]
Exactly, and I don't get all this Naniwa hate. The kid's a genius when it comes to entertainment.
I honestly don't see how anyone can solely blame GOM for this as almost every single tournament that uses groups has games that "don't matter." It's not just GOM.
Also if you want to argue the point that leagues should "just cancel" games that don't matter. You run the extreme risk of not having content for x amount of time you had planned out to have the match. I'd rather run a game that doesn't matter than to not have any content for an hour.
Secondly you are making the argument that in any sport (pro sports included), teams should not play once they cannot advance. That would be less appealing to sponsors because it's another factor into how much time they will get on air. For example, baseball/basketball/any other sports team would just forfeit all of their games once they knew they wouldn't make playoffs. There would be 0 revenue from those games instead of any at all. Think about how much revenue NFL teams make on "games that don't matter." It's not just about the players anymore, eSports is too big for that. It's about quality control, something that leagues, teams, and players need to work on.
On December 14 2011 07:36 XIJABERWALKIX wrote: I honestly don't see how anyone can solely blame GOM for this as almost every single tournament that uses groups has games that "don't matter." It's not just GOM.
Because everyone does it none of them are at fault? That's doesn't make any sense.
On December 14 2011 07:36 XIJABERWALKIX wrote: I honestly don't see how anyone can solely blame GOM for this as almost every single tournament that uses groups has games that "don't matter." It's not just GOM.
Because everyone does it none of them are at fault? That's doesn't make any sense.
Because everyone does it means that you should blame all of them if you are going to blame anyone, not JUST GOM.
Anyone arguing even slightly that Naniwa's actions are even slightly justifiable have probably never been competitive in any sport/game ever. Stop being spuds and realize the gravity of this poor act of sportsmanship by Naniwa.
Isn't this analogy too broad? Not even getting into team sports vs individual sports, I think there's a better example to be had here.
Wouldn't this be more like Brett Lawrie at the plate with 2 outs in the bottom of the 6th facing off against David Price? And lets say the Jays are down 13-2. Instead of taking his at bat competitively, Lawrie just lackadaisically swings at every pitch. That's not a a non-0 strategy. You could hit the ball if Price just delivered a no movement 4-seamer down the middle. So...is Lawrie justified? I guess. Would the fans that paid ticket prices be unhappy? Well..don't they have every right to be? Even if David Price pitched a gem and Bautista hit one out of the park and Evan Longoria got on base 6 times and Ben Zobrist made 10 diving catches....Lawrie didn't bother.
Does this mean that Naniwa's a bad dude? I don't think so. But it was pretty lame, no?
On December 14 2011 07:43 XIJABERWALKIX wrote: Also if you want to argue the point that leagues should "just cancel" games that don't matter. You run the extreme risk of not having content for x amount of time you had planned out to have the match. I'd rather run a game that doesn't matter than to not have any content for an hour.
Secondly you are making the argument that in any sport (pro sports included), teams should not play once they cannot advance. That would be less appealing to sponsors because it's another factor into how much time they will get on air. For example, baseball/basketball/any other sports team would just forfeit all of their games once they knew they wouldn't make playoffs. There would be 0 revenue from those games instead of any at all. Think about how much revenue NFL teams make on "games that don't matter." It's not just about the players anymore, eSports is too big for that. It's about quality control, something that leagues, teams, and players need to work on.
When teams are eliminated in the playoffs, they don't play out the remainder of the series in the NBA/NHL/etc. playoffs. They cut games after elimination all the time.
Why do they need to be played in the season? Because fans have paid for tickets. Fans are promised 82 games. Cables networks have paid for the rights to broadcast. In the playoffs, they sell air-time for games that they know will take place. When they know another game is coming, more air-time/tickets/whatever is sold.
That's what the GSL could have done too. Plan to play x number of games and state that the last few are (if necessary) like every other playoffs/elimination style sport does. On average the sponsors know what they are getting as do the fans.
Not saying they should have done that. But would you want to watch G7 of an NBA series when it ended 4-0 a few games back? Fuck no. Same reason I don't want to watch a meaningless game between two players where they obviously won't show any real builds/strategies or try their hardest.
On December 14 2011 07:43 XIJABERWALKIX wrote: Also if you want to argue the point that leagues should "just cancel" games that don't matter. You run the extreme risk of not having content for x amount of time you had planned out to have the match. I'd rather run a game that doesn't matter than to not have any content for an hour.
Secondly you are making the argument that in any sport (pro sports included), teams should not play once they cannot advance. That would be less appealing to sponsors because it's another factor into how much time they will get on air. For example, baseball/basketball/any other sports team would just forfeit all of their games once they knew they wouldn't make playoffs. There would be 0 revenue from those games instead of any at all. Think about how much revenue NFL teams make on "games that don't matter." It's not just about the players anymore, eSports is too big for that. It's about quality control, something that leagues, teams, and players need to work on.
When teams are eliminated in the playoffs, they don't play out the remainder of the series in the NBA/NHL/etc. playoffs. They cut games after elimination all the time.
Why do they need to be played in the season? Because fans have paid for tickets. Fans are promised 82 games. Cables networks have paid for the rights to broadcast. In the playoffs, they sell air-time for games that they know will take place. When they know another game is coming, more air-time/tickets/whatever is sold.
That's what the GSL could have done too. Plan to play x number of games and state that the last few are (if necessary) like every other playoffs/elimination style sport does. On average the sponsors know what they are getting as do the fans.
Not saying they should have done that. But would you want to watch G7 of an NBA series when it ended 4-0 a few games back? Fuck no. Same reason I don't want to watch a meaningless game between two players where they obviously won't show any real builds/strategies or try their hardest.
It's all about the money. What you're saying is the ideal situation, however in the playoffs of sports games are not played right in a row so companies have time to pay for the slots reserved. All I'm saying is it's more appealing to sponsors as right now it's not exactly like they're bidding for the SC market.
On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote: Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision. An irrational action is like raging like a retard on blogs because a few people said rather retarded things to you and reacting emotionally and not thinking through of consequences.
Actually, let's agree that Naniwa *was* rational. Then his actions are even more insulting because he still chose the option that made a mockery of everyone involved publicly. If he had just told GOM he's forfeiting the last match it would have been covered up nicely by GOM as "well there's no point in playing the last match...". He deliberately chose this option because it's more of a public mockery. Then are the fans irrational for calling him out for it?
It's clear Naniwa was being irrational and his actions had very unintended consequences he was probably unaware of given that he's from a far different culture. Yes, fans are outraged, Koreans are insulted because turns out Naniwa is a bounty hunter instead of what they call a "progamer". Yes, people will react to what they see in their own perspective and not yours because they all have their own definitions that they will stick to no matter what kind of definitions you want to use. Their outrage is rational given their expectations.
So drop the fucking pretense because you're no better than anyone else being outraged at this situation.
milkis thought you left forever? not in my wildest dreams did i ever think you'd return!
[QUOTE]On December 14 2011 06:46 Milkis wrote: [QUOTE]On December 14 2011 04:06 g35nole wrote: [QUOTE]On December 14 2011 02:49 Milkis wrote:
You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision.
Yea, that would be like if someone wrote a blog bashing the SC2 community, saying BW was the only real esport and was then shocked and upset when said SC2 community fires back at him....oh wait. [/QUOTE] Irrational would be expecting people to actually read what was written before taking shots about it. Or expecting people to read the next sentence even. [/QUOTE]
"An irrational action is like raging like a retard on blogs because a few people said rather retarded things to you and reacting emotionally and not thinking through of consequences."
Reacting emotionally and not thinking through the consequences. So like... abandoning your postion as a translator and no longer being a community pillar because some people bashed you and your stance on esports. Which in the long run hurts the Korean SC2 players who you helped more then it hurts the kids on the internet who flamed you? Kind of like that?
Quite frankly, his analogy couldn't be anymore wrong. As a person who follows professional sports (MLB, NHL, NFL) just as much, if not more than SC2; I can't believe you used a re-building sports franchise as a comparison to a guy throwing a meaningless SC2 game.
There are literally no parallels between the two, and baseball and starcraft couldn't be anymore different. The Astros fielded a AAA lineup for a majority of the season. This is not because they wanted to, but they were forced to because of payroll issues, failure to maintain a winning % above 40 (losing A LOT), and with that comes severe lack in attendance which they were already dealing with before. The team has nothing to lose, and oddly, something to potentially gain from losing a lot of games, which is a high draft pick.
That is literally the only comparison though, Naniwa and the 2010-2011 Houston Astros both had essentially failed before the big show ended (meaning the GOM tourney and the entire 162 games played by the Astros).
Have you considered betting implications? A team lineup would be known before the game and the odds of a weakened team winning/losing would be priced in. Throwing the game is basically match fixing. It's not the point whether there was any money or not put on the game, there probably wasn't. But if SC2 wants to take itself seriously, this kind of thing can't be allowed to occur.
You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision.
Yea, that would be like if someone wrote a blog bashing the SC2 community, saying BW was the only real esport and was then shocked and upset when said SC2 community fires back at him....oh wait.
Irrational would be expecting people to actually read what was written before taking shots about it. Or expecting people to read the next sentence even.
"An irrational action is like raging like a retard on blogs because a few people said rather retarded things to you and reacting emotionally and not thinking through of consequences."
Reacting emotionally and not thinking through the consequences. So like... abandoning your postion as a translator and no longer being a community pillar because some people bashed you and your stance on esports. Which in the long run hurts the Korean SC2 players who you helped more then it hurts the kids on the internet who flamed you? Kind of like that?
1) I quit immediately after MLG Orlando. In fact, you can read about that in my MLG Orlando recap. 2) Yes, exactly like that. If you read the post I wrote to begin with which you took out of context to take a pot shot at me... I pretty much state what you said verbatim. 3) For someone who can't read you sure talk a lot about consequences. Learn to read before you make any more stupid comments.
Naniwa failed at his job. Which is to entertain. Because if Starcraft wasn't entertaining, the GSL would be held inside your mother's basement. Would Tiger Woods get millions if no one gave a shit about golf?
On December 13 2011 22:33 imMUTAble787 wrote: I really don't see any validity to the comparison you chose at all. Naniwa punted a game in an invitational tournament that was supposed to showcase the top talent of SC2 from the year. It was cowardly and childish at best.
It's even borderline hypocritical to see someone who constantly says they care about nothing other than winning to purposely lose a game like that.
He cheesed.. he punted? Punting would've been sending his probes over to nestea and leaving the booth while the probes were going there. If his hands were still on the mouse and the keyboard then you don't have that as an argument.
Sorry I don't know when people chose what cheese was acceptable or not but that seems to be all the talk I've been hearing.
On December 13 2011 22:33 imMUTAble787 wrote: I really don't see any validity to the comparison you chose at all. Naniwa punted a game in an invitational tournament that was supposed to showcase the top talent of SC2 from the year. It was cowardly and childish at best.
It's even borderline hypocritical to see someone who constantly says they care about nothing other than winning to purposely lose a game like that.
He cheesed.. he punted? Punting would've been sending his probes over to nestea and leaving the booth while the probes were going there. If his hands were still on the mouse and the keyboard then you don't have that as an argument.
Sorry I don't know when people chose what cheese was acceptable or not but that seems to be all the talk I've been hearing.
He sent his probes there, and took his hands off the keyboard according to the casters. So... does this mean we have an argument?
3) For someone who can't read you sure talk a lot about consequences. Learn to read before you make any more stupid comments.
Thanks.
I'm so glad you ran your own image into the ground. Plain rude and dismissive behaviour is not something the community needs from one of it's pillars. Don't assume people didn't read you're post. A lot of us did, and didn't like it.
3) For someone who can't read you sure talk a lot about consequences. Learn to read before you make any more stupid comments.
Thanks.
I'm so glad you ran your own image into the ground. Plain rude and dismissive behaviour is not something the community needs from one of it's pillars. Don't assume people didn't read you're post. A lot of us did, and didn't like it.
WTF.... The first two people to attack Milkis in this post were criticizing him for siding with the Koreans, which, if you READ his post, he did not do, hence his following posts. And now people are attacking him for something that happened a couple months ago and has no bearing now. Interesting.
Well written article. It is sad that such a loving community has turned a fierce eye to Naniwa. I agree it was unsportsmanlike to cheese in such an effortless way, essentially throwing the game. That doesn't mean that I have lost any respect for Naniwa. The guy is still one of the most powerful competitors in the Starcraft 2 scene and he still does amazing things that 99.9% of us could never achieve. The guy has given us some of the most amazing performances in past games and tournaments to date and been a constant figure head in one of our favorite past-times. I hope the community can come to their senses and realize that Naniwa does not deserve the obscene amount of flak he is receiving.
The baseball equvilent of probe rushing would be underhand pitching and batting with the opposite handedness technically still in the game but NO resonible chance of winning. Playing a "b" team would be more like if did some experimental build, less chance of winning than a "normal" game, but get practice and get to see how well a new strategy works.
That being said, all the BM players: Idra, naniwa, or anyone else, are hurting SC2's community and public image.
i have no clue about baseball (because i come from europe), but in team sports, matches that doesn`t really matter occur all the time. In almost every groupstage or qualifier tournament in any football-tournament (and by football, of course i mean soccer), whether it is a club-tournament like the UEFA Champions League or nationality tournament like the FIFA World Cup qualifiers. But rarely ever will you see such a game beeing thrown away by either one of the participating teams.
Of course, its absolutely common for those matches to be played with what you can call a "b-lineup", e.g. players that are normally sitting on the bench.
But here comes my point: You cannot compare those kind of matches with what naniwa has done today.
- In every football match, as well as in other physical sport, there is always the risk of injuries. So many coaches put that risk into account, when they put their A-Lineup on the bench.
- Its a teamsport! You have group-dynamics in there. Players that rarely play will get frustrated and so on. Another reason for letting them play in matches that "doenst matter".
My point is, that a physical teamsport (like baseball) cannot be compared with a 1v1 mind-sport (like sc2).
The question is: What would have Naniwa discouraged from playing a "regular" game, e.g. trying his best to win it.
Risk of injury? No. Giving other players a chance? No. Group-Dynamics? No. Waste of his time? Okay, sure. Maybe 30minutes of his lifetime would have been wasted.
But whats on the upside?!
1. There are people out there who actually like this guy. Maybe they even payed for the HD-Pass only to watch him play. He could have entertained those guys.
2. He is on the television. The longer his face is up there and he puts up a good show, the more his reputation will rise. What this means for his team and sponsors is obvious.
3. Sportsmanship. Its just the basic principle of going into any competetive match with an adversary. You give your best, no matter what. Its called respect.
The talk about proberushing beeing a "valid strategy" with non-zero chances of winnig is ridiculous, by the way. I think you missjudged the situation.
He was just selfish in this moment. He was pissed because of his previous games and did not think a second of his obligations to other people. This is what you call unprofessionalism.
If he wanted a fast game - fine. Just do the best 4gate you can. If you lose, whatever. Everybody will be happy. You gave it a shot with a legitimate all-in tactic and it didn't work, no biggie. If you win, even better! It would have cost him 8 more minutes of lifetime, but all this shitstorm would have been avoided EASILY!
rational post within a "rational thread", well played
On December 13 2011 23:27 Crashburn wrote: If strategy_winrate =< 0 then strategy = invalid
If strategy_winrate > 0 then strategy = valid
Unless you can prove that strategy_winrate (in this case, worker-rushing) is zero, you can't really fall on the "this strategy was designed to lose" argument. Obviously, this taking an already inane debate to another extreme, but really, that argument needs to die. If you continue to go with it, then you must logically set an arbitrary threshold at some point. Is it strategy_winrate = 0.1%? Why not 0.2%? Or 0.01%? If you can't explain that, then you have no business making the argument.
Obviously, GOM can set their rules (which, as far as I know, are presently nonexistent) however they want, just as baseball has a logical inconsistency in banning amphetamines, but not energy drinks. I wouldn't have a problem with that.
This post shows the ignorance. What Naniwa did was not worker rushing. Worker rushing involves microing your workers once you arrive in the enemy base. Sending your workers into an enemy base that has more workers and trying to kill them without microing has a 0% chance of success at the professional level. I would say 0% chance of success ever but someone in the bottom of bronze league likely died to it once.
On December 14 2011 11:57 Hoban wrote: Well written article. It is sad that such a loving community has turned a fierce eye to Ryan Braun. I agree it was unsportsmanlike to cheat in such an effortless way, essentially screwing the game. That doesn't mean that I have lost any respect for Ryan Braun. The guy is still one of the most powerful competitors in baseball and he still does amazing things that 99.9% of us could never achieve. The guy has given us some of the most amazing performances in past games and series to date and been a constant figure head in one of our favorite past-times. I hope the community can come to their senses and realize that Ryan Braun does not deserve the obscene amount of flak he is receiving.
3) For someone who can't read you sure talk a lot about consequences. Learn to read before you make any more stupid comments.
Thanks.
I'm so glad you ran your own image into the ground. Plain rude and dismissive behaviour is not something the community needs from one of it's pillars. Don't assume people didn't read you're post. A lot of us did, and didn't like it.
WTF.... The first two people to attack Milkis in this post were criticizing him for siding with the Koreans, which, if you READ his post, he did not do, hence his following posts. And now people are attacking him for something that happened a couple months ago and has no bearing now. Interesting.
I'm not attacking Milkis for the NaNi issue, i'm criticising the way he behave's on these forums.
Dont understand all the hate he gets. Like what OP said, its meaningless for him to play the game. Like what happens in MLG, there tend to be some players who leave early, or just dont play their game, since its meaning.
Something that happened recently, is a football match between Arsenal and Olympiakos. Arsenal qualified for the next stages of UCL and fielded a B team.
IMO, such games shouldnt even take place and broadcasted(at the event).
Discussing rationality makes no sense. What he did was irrational in any reasonable understanding of the word, but that is beside the point. Question is did he do something wrong, immoral ? The answer might be yes, but only in very indirect and problematic sense as if we use such strict moral judgement everyone who is criticizing Naniwa did something similarly immoral in last few months. So in more reasonable sense his action was amoral, morally neutral as the only person that was actually in any objective manner "hurt" by his actions was Naniwa himself.
1. Nobody forces any of us to watch these matches in the first place.
2. I neither know much about nor do I particularly sympathize with Naniwa. However, he is a professional player whose decisions as well as their consequences are entirely his own.
The argument in the original post is full of holes that are readily apparent to anyone who pays attention to baseball in the slightest.
1. MLB teams play 162 games in a season; players get days off, even on teams in the middle of a playoff race. 2. There are ulterior motives for playing rookies and other "unproven" players in hopes that you glean some information on how they can help your team the next season. 3. I guarantee every one of those players made a valiant effort toward doing their best performance. 4. Your specific example is terrible: Jordan Schafer, CF (118 PA) - Former top prospect, trying to get him reps at the MLB level. Their everyday CF (Michael Borne) was traded before this game. J.B. Shuck, RF (92 PA) - Will likely be on their MLB roster next season, trying to see what they have. J.D. Martinez, LF (226 PA) - Likely their starting LF in 2012. He's a great defender and one of the top Astros prospects. Carlos Lee, 1B (653 PA) - Everyday player. Matt Downs, 2B (222 PA) - As good or better than any other 2B on their roster. Chris Johnson, 3B (405 PA) - Terrible player, but started most of their games at 3B. Clint Barmes, SS (495 PA) - Their best SS. J.R. Towles, C (165 PA) - All their catchers are terrible.
So... does that look like throwing a game? Or is that just standard practice of trying to balance your teams performance now versus seeing what you have and building for the future?
Naniwa threw a game. That's it. And this Astros game example is nothing like throwing a game.
Playing a B team is completely different than throwing a game, just like substituting the core players in a basketball game out of play when the scores aren't very close. It reduces the chance of injuring key players and gives the B team a chance to improve their skills and gain exp. in live tournaments.
I'm not even sure the analogy is parallel here, the coach makes the decision in your example, which has nothing to do with player behavior. How is this a rational comparison to the Naniwa situation????
EPT
