EPTExcellent write-up. Said exactly what I was feeling far more eloquently (and lengthily) than I could've.
A Different Perspective on The NaNiwa Controversy - Page 10
| Blogs > EGalex |
|
blacksheepwall
China1530 Posts
Excellent write-up. Said exactly what I was feeling far more eloquently (and lengthily) than I could've. | ||
|
CharlieBrownsc
Canada598 Posts
| ||
|
ReboundEU
508 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:43 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: I have been reading posts like this from the very beginning. Even one thing has to be said, none were this well articulated. Its hard to disagree with the post and I will try to articulate why. But the thing that annoys me the most about this situation is how shallow and political are all the posts. There are facts that cannot be mediated by ignoring them and it creates this whole pitchfork mistrust between viewers. Does this happen in regular sports? Yes, person would be real dummy, if they said it does not. Does the stated fact have any direct correlation? Well besides the obvious elephant in the room, being the sponsorship, there is not a single correlation. Why is there no correlation? Well, because everything is stated on a clear business model before anything even starts. Every professional organization in Europe and probably in US too has rule sets to provide better options. Does that mean that GOMTV failed to do a professional job? 100% yes. There is the issue of Koreans depending on platitudes likes honor and misconceptions (Professional sportsman is not a sportsman) and they fucked up again. I was interested in EGAlex opinion because this could have happened to EG with all the business around Puma too. they realized they fucked there too and created (This was pretty much clearly stated) the whole pitchfork reaction from korean side of things.ore " I am quite disappointed that there is no reaction to the fact they decided to punish him through means they didnt have, then they change the tunes twice. (Ban/NotBan). Does that mean Alex does not care much about leagues bending their rules to punish something (That yes it needs to be punished), by breaking the whole idea of law based society? The rule they tried to enforce at first was broke by nearly all the Code S/GSL players from the very beginning of Starcraft 2 at GOMTV and did not even have correlation with what naniwa did. EDIT: If the post was compartmentalized my point still stands, because we cannot do that. We cannot ignore the snakes in the room, because there is an elephant. PS: Yes MLG has a part of rule set that would prohibit naniwa from throwing the match I agree with most of the things here specially related to the competitions. I am kinda tired of seeing competitions randomly made. I understand that they have to satisfy the sponsors....and i understand that players need to be professional...but what about competitions? Who decides if they get a fine for not being "professional" ... who makes sure they don't fk up like they did. The fact that redundant matches exist doesn't mean it can't be fixed or even try atleast. I want competitions to become "professional" also. I have seen alot of misscomunication between GOM and MLG regarding Code S seeds....how did this happen? My 2 cents on this is that a big part of the blame is on the competitions themselfs. A biger authority..or a union between all competitions at a business level is clearly needed. U guys need to meet and discuss common competition formats or in that vecinity. U need to help eachother get more "professional" if u guys want this thing to grow..don't expect only the players to get professional and u just sit in the back and profit from the hype. Again these are my 2 cents on the topic i might be right or wrong..but as i see it..each competition does what it wants. There's no consistency jumping from 1 competition to another..there are no clear rules between tournament managers...communication is very low. There needs to be a high union (authority) that fines tournaments if they fk up so that they improve not just themselfs but the revenue from the e-sport movement. Tournaments in their turn can fine players for not being professional. I don't say they have to be the exact same that would be bull... what i am saying is that some rules have to be common so that a player for example has to play as less useless games as possible (common format rule)....players don't have to change their training based on the same map but with small modifications...for fk sake CHOSE A MAP..and then use it globally..at the moment each tournament has it's own map..i consider that degrading. That does not help either the player..the tournament or the viewers..because everyone is confused. As a pro player if u are confused u can't give it 100% (see what happened at MLG with naniwa-cross pos). These are the kind of stuff i am talking about...common rules...common mindsets....a bit of consistency and everything is MUCH clearer. If u don't respect u fine...if u fine u won't repeat that mistake...easy right? Apply to tournaments the same professionalism treatment u apply to players...because "we are in it together". Bottom line is that tournaments need a higher authority so that they can "mature". If they mature..everything else does together with them without even asking for it. U can't make the exact same tournament everywere on the planet just because of the cultural differences and so on and so forth (witch for viewers doesn't even mater) BUT u need small common rules that can be accepted like formats..matches...stuff like that... "forfeit rules" bla bla bla. | ||
|
Fluffboll
Sweden516 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:31 EGalex wrote: With that said, I also think it's fair to point out that boycotting a match is quite different from throwing a match, but I don't want to derail the conversation. I have to disagree with this since they both do exactly the same thing. They rob the viewer of what they came there to see, a professional game between two (or more) players or teams. There is no distinguishable difference between them in any way shape or form for the viewer or the tournament, they both cheat viewers and organizers alike. | ||
|
StrinterN
Denmark531 Posts
| ||
|
TeeTS
Germany2762 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:17 matiK23 wrote: You're not really a fan, then are you? So if that's your logic, you obviously did not watch Naniwa vs Nestea because he's out of the tournament anyway right? You're such a great fan. You're basically a bandwagon fan. Why would you not support a team, who is already down and out, just to make them even feel more down when their fans are not there? Are these seriously your thought patterns? I notice alot of Swedes are with Naniwa's decision. They're obviously biased, nationalistic opinions. What you even said was totally off tangent in the first place. The thing is people DID watch Naniwa vs Nestea and were anticipating a great game, but didn't happen and lead to this huge controversy which will not die because people DID watch it. Please think before you type. I suggest this to anyone who thinks Naniwa is a saint because you are 100% wrong. I personally expected at least an interesting game, because I thought every sportsman wants to end the tournament with a good performance. (especially when they're out) Naniwa not only threw this chance away for himself, but also took this chance away from nestea. Alex explained very well, why this kind of behavior is really damaging esports out of an economic point of view. I really liked this. But I think, especially for us as an audience, it's ruining every value of sportsmanship for nearly everyone involved. So out of this reasons, such actions can't be tolerated at all and GOM wanted to make sure, that this and every possible action of this kind never happens again, so they choosed a (non-formal) - this point has still to be clearified by MLG - punishment, which seemed very harsch due to the given situation at first, but after I thought it for a while, I think it's fully acceptable. I personally didn't mind it so much when it happened but on the other hand, I don't want these things to ever happen again, maybe even on a regular basis, so it was actually a really big deal! I think at this point of time a large part of the community understands, that what's happened was wrong and that the punishment by GOM is quite adequate. So I hope everyone learned something from this and we'll have a nice year 2012! | ||
|
keioh
France1099 Posts
On the GOM responsability of organizing tournament with bad format... well you always have the right to refuse the invite. If you don't, then you agree with the rules and the format, retarded/bad or not. That is also professionalism from my point of view. I hope that this situation won't have a too much negative impact on Naniwa, be it his reputation or his motivation. | ||
|
thopol
Japan4560 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: I've given this a lot of thought but I don't think you can ever define the line. You can't find the boundary. You can however spot outliers. A lot of people come up with gray area examples as a counter to outliers - they're not the same. We are able to tell when we're sure someone is giving it their earnest and we are able to tell when someone doesn't try at all. It's not possible to determine where the line is and effectively use it for any sort of policy. As such the policies need to be directed at the outliers where everyone can agree no effort was made to win. I understand what you mean, and I don't really think you can define a line either. This means though, that when a player is in that grey area, they are at risk of professional repercussions because of something fundamentally unrelated to their ability to play the game. We are judging a player's acting ability on a case-by-case. What does it mean that we are put in a situation where success in esports is subject to how well someone puts on a show? Do fans expect players to be entertainers or to do their best to win? When we have a situation where a player can be punished for something, there needs to a rule against it. If it is to be judged on a case by case basis, we need to have criteria that we look at. If our sole criterion is effort, we need to define how we measure that as best we can. If this remains a vague area, there are ramifications for the whole scene. Players and organizers both need to consider this new angle when preparing strategies and event formats in the future. To EGAlex, if Nazgul's position is exactly what you were getting at, great. If you would like to hear a response to your rebuttal, I would prefer if we took it to PM. | ||
|
Nyctophobia
Canada99 Posts
| ||
|
gTank
Austria2559 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:17 matiK23 wrote: You're not really a fan, then are you? So if that's your logic, you obviously did not watch Naniwa vs Nestea because he's out of the tournament anyway right? You're such a great fan. You're basically a bandwagon fan. Why would you not support a team, who is already down and out, just to make them even feel more down when their fans are not there? Are these seriously your thought patterns? I notice alot of Swedes are with Naniwa's decision. They're obviously biased, nationalistic opinions. What you even said was totally off tangent in the first place. The thing is people DID watch Naniwa vs Nestea and were anticipating a great game, but didn't happen and lead to this huge controversy which will not die because people DID watch it. Please think before you type. I suggest this to anyone who thinks Naniwa is a saint because you are 100% wrong. after alex long post, this is the 2nd best post i have read on this whole topic since the begining... also, the insight of how teams in SC2 are managed is interesting as well, thx for the very nice write-up alex! | ||
|
SirMilford
Australia1269 Posts
Saying that though, Naniwa should not have done the probe rush. It a dumb and brash move that he must insanely regret. | ||
|
MandoRelease
France374 Posts
Thanks for explaining it to people who refused to see it in others thread. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:55 CharlieBrownsc wrote: I don't agree with your sentiment that it is a pro players responsibility to put on a good show for the spectators. No pro practices hours upon hours so he can put on good shows, no pro motivates himself by saying "if I practice these couple more hours I can put on a better show." Associating entertainment with a pro players job is silly IMO. You play to win the game. Period. For Naniwa, this game was the blizzard cup, of which he could not win, so he did not play. Very simple, very understandable. Boxer disagrees. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://f.cl.ly/items/1g3l393Q2K3K2X19272Z/lim_yo-hwan.jpg) In fact when asked, most Korean progamers will tell you that they play for the fans. Anyway, on topic, this is a great blog, huge props to EGAlex for taking the time to write it. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:59 Fluffboll wrote: I have to disagree with this since they both do exactly the same thing. They rob the viewer of what they came there to see, a professional game between two (or more) players or teams. There is no distinguishable difference between them in any way shape or form for the viewer or the tournament, they both cheat viewers and organizers alike. There is a difference. Had Naniwa refused to go into that booth to play a meaningless match vs Nestea, he would've at least been upfront about his stance. However, going into that booth, setting up, and starting the game only to just simply throw it is different. He deceived the viewers, organisers, sponsors, staff and etc into thinking he will play a game of SC2 vs Nestea when he clearly didn't intend to. Do you not see the difference between a player refusing to play, and agreeing to play only to not? | ||
|
Huggerz
Great Britain919 Posts
| ||
|
Remb
United States190 Posts
But I think that a player can never play his best games when he knows there is nothing at stake, and it is the responsibility of the tournaments to host formats that create meaningful games. Too often I see players feign motivation when they are put into those situations you described, and those games truly anger me. Watching a player perform a game where it is apparent he is not motivated to play his best is insulting to my intelligence. I am paying for honest competition, not a fake and empty showmatch that is supposed to entertain me. I pay these companies to create a tournament where the players are motivated because the games are important to them. The situation does occur quite often, but they are rarely ever pointed out. It's quite laughable how you parallel these situations to athletic sports to justify their existence. Nobody cares about the last two teams playing their final match of the season, and the turnouts for those games are always abysmal. Because the fans are not stupid. The fans know when a game is meaningless. They know when the players don't give a damn, but the players slug on and half-ass it because "it's their job". Well you are selling the fans short. Naniwa's game angered me. But if Naniwa chose the politically correct strategy of 2 base all in or 4 gate, I would have been equally angered. Both strategies are equally meaningless to me, because the situation itself was meaningless. | ||
|
Chrill
Sweden91 Posts
| ||
|
Timerly
Germany511 Posts
On December 15 2011 22:04 EGalex wrote: You're merely pointing out the fact that a player's experience and/or mental approach to a tournament match is different from his experience and/or mental approach to a show match. This is obviously true, but it has no logical relationship whatsoever to whether or not the same expectations of effort and play quality apply to both kinds of matches. Different experience for the player in a tournament match vs. a show match (doesnotequal) different standards of play quality/good faith for the player in a tournament match vs. a show match. It's not really my place to weigh in on where the line is; I make no subjective assertions on this subject in the OP. In fact, my point is entirely that this kind of subject matter is unbelievably subjective. It's not really up to me to decide what would or wouldn't have been sufficient. What did happen was certainly insufficient, but to comment any further than that would be purely my subjective opinion. First of all, throwing showmatches and tournament matches together does not help here. They are very different and nobody expects a thrilling, 110% game in exhibition match, it's just not happening, the mental factor is part of it. You try to overemphasize the business side as both work the same way but you underestimate how reality sometimes beats you to it. The honesty with which Naniwa acted was part of his personality, much less of a business decision and as I said, you may have the same standards but if reality shows that somebody has to be motivated in some cases, why not shoulder that weight and go motivate him instead of pounding on ideals that simply aren't met? Sure, you can get rid of the brilliant player Naniwa because you don't want to take care of him but it remains questionable whether that is better than letting a worse player play who does it out of himself. I dare say the level of play produced and enjoyment generated for customers is greater if you can motivate Naniwa. People like Ronaldo who are crybaby divas and just stop trying all the time still play because they are arguably the best and somebody makes sure they perform with whatever appropriate measures. You can not state "Naniwa should have" without asking yourself "why didn't he?" and "how could we have made him do?". Yes, people have expectations to be met but making sure these are met is not only the players fault. Again, it's far too easy to just blame a tilted Naniwa. Considering all star games, these are some American phenomenon. They generate great revenue but the level of play is often times much worse or based around the actual approach of trying to entertain (Globetrotters). They make you money and are important for business but they don't represent the actual sport. Plus, as I said, meaningless matches do not exist in most sports. There's always incentive and there's a reason why there is. I also do not understand how you can compare LoL and GSL VoDs. One gives you access to 1/7th of a final for free, the other gives you free access to everything if you're willing to play it. One is Freemium, the other is a direct pay model. Any marketing specialist can tell you how that affects your customer base. It's not just extras, it's essentials that are "pay only" given that live is fleeting, unrepeatable. If they had multiple reruns and rotationg free season VoDs and whatnot you could argue similiarity. There's much less opportunity cost involved for time spent otherwise, something that consumers usually punish. That's not what happens in major sports. The vast majority of revenue generated by professional sports teams comes from direct-to-consumer revenue streams like ticket sales and merchandise. Business-to-business revenue (like television contracts and in-stadium advertising) is also important, but these are mostly ad buys, not sponsorship. Merchandise for most teams is not nearly as big, at least not in the first and second division football teams I could take a look at from a controlling perspective. Tickets, TV rights and shares of ad revenue collected by the handlers of these rights were the most dominant with much less emphasis on ticket sales with lower public interest (GOM has like 100 seats max anyways). However, you also get huge cost from ticket sales because they affect your capacity and do not create economies of scale too well (the opposite of what ad revenue does). Essentially you wind up with the indirect sales to customers (TV rights -> pay per view etc.) which arguably could be direct sales and shared ad revenue. Direct-to-consumer revenue is, by definition, a better revenue stream than business-to-business revenue, and getting paid to market to the consumer indirectly. The former offers you more stability and control over your revenue stream, and a higher return on investment per person reached. Now, you argue that you have more control over direct sales but how so, the only extra factor for ad revenue would be an agency you hire yourself. Whether you handle sales directly or ads directly is much less of a difference. Then you get a lot less stability and planability based purely on performance. Ad revenue is often times a set amount paid per viewer, especially in online streaming. How is that different in scaling? You have 100% control as your marketing efforts directly translate into more viewers which means more revenue. Your whole argument is based on some beliefs that have been argued about in economic science for years. Marketing professors quote that, controlling professors show them opposite results and at some point people will agree that the bottom line matters. Obviously, from the purely theoretical perspective the value created and the value paid differ here but that is based on the consumer perception of the value. The thing is, consumers decide where your pricing is for b2c and businesses decide where your pricing is for b2b. There's no differentiation except that handling business relationships is usually less expensive if done right (might be an EU thing because of differing laws). The question where you get more ROI per consumer does not matter that much when they offer completely different market shares. You reach more people with ad financed, free content than with paid content (you reach even more with the option to pay to turn off ads etc.). | ||
|
nevercomingback
11 Posts
| ||
|
Eineez
Sweden37 Posts
On December 15 2011 21:32 nttea wrote: of course it's not a good thing! coming to think of it, krogan is a great example of a dishonest swede making such ridiculous generalizations about swedes and on top of it claiming he doesn't want to sound pro swedish or anti american when it seems to be his only fucking agenda. indeed! however, naniwa seems to be a VERY honest person, so when he says he didnt realize how the ppl would react, I believe him 100%. I'm sure all parties has learned from their mistakes these last few days, and I think we need to forgive (both naniwa and GOMTV) and move on, seriously. | ||
| ||
