EPTThanks for this. I was dumbfounded by the volume of people excusing NaNi's actions, and this is why.
A Different Perspective on The NaNiwa Controversy - Page 11
| Blogs > EGalex |
|
GeorgeForeman
United States1746 Posts
Thanks for this. I was dumbfounded by the volume of people excusing NaNi's actions, and this is why. | ||
|
Lazarusnpx
Portugal32 Posts
I don't agree that GOM is not to blame in this matter too, as said, GOM job is to deliver a good product to the viewers, by using the weird formats that they used in both GSL and this last cup, i must say they have been failing allot in delivering consistently good tournaments and the reason of their success is much due to the fact that it is The korean league, the GOM solution here was easy, the game would only be played if both players felt that they could deliver. They leave loop holes in their format that allow for this kind of situation to happen, they should either find a more fitting format (MLG manages to make every game count) or have someone stay close to the players and see if they are in good conditions to play, GOM should control their product and not only hope that players will do what is expected, with that model alot can go wrong all the time, and the reason that it hasn't is a testament of the extreme professionalism of the overall SC2 players. This happens in most sports, it's been used allot the comparison that this does not happen in professional sports, but its not fair to put just the 1 player in the same role as a full team, in those teams the player that just isn't able to perform can be replaced and, in fact, it is not at all unusual for teams to just use their B team when they have nothing to win and want to save their players, atleast here in europe i see that frequently. I'm kind of glad that this question is coming up and we are having the chance to discuss this and maybe the people responsible for both sides of hipotetical situations like this can understand a bit better the good way to handle this. | ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
 Still I really start to hate naniwa | ||
|
Fluffboll
Sweden516 Posts
On December 15 2011 23:13 Telcontar wrote: 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? There is no real difference in it at all, in either case you don't get to see the match you thought you were going to see. Everyone gets robbed equally in both cases. You personally may feel more cheated by watching a thrown game but that matters little as everyone gets robbed of a good game equally in both cases. | ||
|
Nikerym
Australia17 Posts
Each game rather then offering $900, offers $225 to the winner, and $100 to the loser. still giving players a reason to play "meaningless" matches. Naniwa did 2 things wrong. \ 1. he made it completely obvious that he was throwing the game, 2. he didn't even try to explain it after the game beyond saying "i couldn't be bothered" he could have claimed he was attempting to push into the base at a timing when nestea could be 6pooling, 7 probes > 5 drones. valid strategy, spends 30 seconds microing, loses, everyone was excited that someone tried that dispite being wrong. I agree with alex that it's the responsibility of the players to provide good games to the viewers, i mean ultimatly we are thier paycheck. but a good game doesn't have to be a long game (though i do prefer those  ) one of my main GSL memories was Idra vs Jinro in which idra 6pooled, and jinro somehow managed to escort his marine into a bunker with like 1-2 health left on it. the game only lasted 5-6 minutes, but the suspense of wether he would get that marine in or not, and the "OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE HE JUST DID THAT" when he did, made it imo a very memorable game.As long as a player can explain (validly) why his strategy completely failed, i'm happy that they put in the effort. PS, change how money is paid to remove "meaningless" games at least from group/seeded players (MLG/Dreamhack) where they are garenteed a paycheck. | ||
|
machiavelli
United States8 Posts
| ||
|
Neelia
Germany599 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233527¤tpage=5#95 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233527¤tpage=8#141 A lot of people where quite hyped for Nada - Idra and Nada had to stay up all night for this lol. I'm not quite sure if it's appropriate to criticize the behavior of another teams player if your players are doing the same. | ||
|
kmpow
Sweden15 Posts
On December 15 2011 20:28 TheButtonmen wrote: Saying that games don't matter unless money is on the line quite frankly appalls me, that's a direction I don't want to see Sc2 headed in at all; you're dismissing the game as a sham because of the lack of dollars attached to it. I think this is a quote worth exploring. One perspective is if Naniwa's actions is bad because of the money lost by 3rd parties, organizers and sponsors. That is, the player's situation is less worth than that of the organizers. This is still a perspective focused around the money surrounding the business. The other is of course what I think TheButtonmen wants to express, that a player should play no matter the potential money attached. I think the pro-scene is beyond that point a long time ago, professional players earn their money from the game and 3rd parties earn their money of sponsors and paying viewers. What IS interesting is if it's OK to demand the player to be an entertainer as well as a competitor? My opinion is simply that a match set in the context of a tournament where to motivation is high placement and money attached. Which the tournament gave in the bigger picture, but lost in this particular game. I don't think anyone can blame Naniwa for not playing his best in the first three games, being the competitor. Both players and their previous history deserved to be in a situation where their game had an impact. Not a placement/show match for second to last place in one of two groups. To Egalex Thank you for your reply. Being quoted I recognize my simplification of your role in esports. However, this is also my main concern of your argument where the player as a competitor is not respected. Professional can absolutely be interpreted in various ways, having a vocation for money. But I see the players as competitors not sponsorship representatives and/or entertainers for entertainment's sake. On December 15 2011 20:56 EGalex wrote: What exactly do you mean by "the bias of money"? Are you criticizing me for approaching the situation from the perspective of someone who would like to see the eSports industry be sustainable, and employing logical business sense? Yes I think I do. There is a disconnect between the respect of the player as a competitor versus his/her role as a revenue stream. The competitor deserves to compete in a competition where each game is competitive in its context. It is also what motivates the fans, at least those respecting honest games. The growth of esports should not be the concern of the competitor. On December 15 2011 20:56 EGalex wrote: My interpretation of this information is that A) equates to mild disapproval, B) equates to strong disapproval, C) equates to mild approval, and D) equates to strong approval. According to the numbers above, this would place public opinion at 64/36 in disapproval, which is only one percentage point away from my proposed figures (when I began writing my blog, the numbers added up to exactly 65/35). It is really open for interpretation what the poll actually says. I argue for sympathy, which is in three of the four alternatives, A, C and D. You argue the disapproval of alternatives A and B and no one is wrong. What is quite clear is that B is the only option which would hold true to your argument of completely unacceptable. I voted A and I'm writing here, arguing against your points. I do not think Naniwa's actions was a wise move. However, completely unacceptable is, I feel, a stretch contrasted with sympathy and understanding. On December 15 2011 20:56 EGalex wrote: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by grudge-match argument, but I'm assuming that you're claiming that my logic involves some kind of textbook logical fallacy. The point that the system only works when all parties (teams, players, tournaments, and fans) do their part is entirely accurate. I would be happy to elaborate on why this is, and how the different pieces work together, if you like. I used a wrong introductory sentence to this paragraph, since it relates more to the potential value of the game. The logical fallacy is that of analogues to arena sports. The main point being whether all parties did their part refers to the potential entertainment value of the game. The poll, again, indicates a big majority in understanding for Naniwa's actions as a result of the ridiculous match situation. Are you not more concerned that competitive players are forced into uninteresting games than their unmotivated play in such an event? Isn't your business to exploit good and exciting competitors rather than famed names playing without gain for their efforts? Finally, I do not hold you personally responsible for your players' previous actions, but it will be interesting to see the presented argument followed through in future actions of the EG players and teams. Sincerly | ||
|
ottersareneat
United States55 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. I would agree that a player's primary focus, and primary expense of practice time, is directed towards winning. However, there's a difference between what a player wants to do with his time in an ideal world, and what a player needs to do with his time in reality. You say that associating entertainment with a pro player's job is silly. I'm sorry, but this couldn't be more backwards. If a pro player had no involvement with entertainment, he wouldn't be a pro player. You can idealize unrealistic, over-romanticized notions of "winning is the only thing that matters" all you want to, but the reality is that pro players are pro players because they get paid by tournaments and teams. And, how do those tournaments and teams get the money which they then redistribute to the players? By selling entertainment to the community, and advertising sponsors to the community via entertainment. TL;DR if there's no entertainment within a pro player's job, then there are no pro players. | ||
|
Swwww
Switzerland812 Posts
| ||
|
mr_tolkien
France8631 Posts
On the topic of meaningless matches : it was «meaningless» for seeding, I agree. But you can't even call the game «meaningless» when you know Naniwa was PAYED to play it. The $s where the reason why he played, and god should he have played the game ! It was worth 225$s. | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
On December 15 2011 17:51 EGalex wrote: There are (for the most part) three kinds of situations in which players usually throw matches, or don't put forth maximum effort. [...] There's Scenario B, in which the match is meaningless for the player himself, but has meaning for his opponent and/or a third-party (example: IdrA vs. White-Ra at the IPL3 Finals, in which IdrA forfeited because he had already qualified for bracket play - which was seeded randomly - and wanted to get some rest). [...] Scenarios A, B, and C all happen, regularly, in professional sports. [...] And, during absolutely every regular season in such leagues, there are teams who are eliminated from playoff contention well before the season is over, but still have to play out their schedules in full - including games against other teams who are still in the playoff hunt (Scenario B). [...] My point is that in all of the scenarios, examples, and hypotheticals I've outlined above, the player or team - at the very least - still did its job, put on a show for the spectators, and delivered a quality product to its respective league. All of them, of course, except for the one we're all so feverishly discussing. Can you explain how you can go from the eSport scenario B (Idra forfeiting & not playing games) to "In all scenarios the player [...] put on a show for the spectators"? The difference between "Professional sport" B and "eSport" B is exactly that. In one scenario the players put on a show - in the other not. Similiar to how Naniwa didnt put on a show. | ||
|
EvOr
France48 Posts
On December 15 2011 23:26 Neelia wrote: I fail to see a difference between what naniwa did and what idra did @nasl s1 tie breakers against SjoW and Nada: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233527¤tpage=5#95 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=233527¤tpage=8#141 A lot of people where quite hyped for Nada - Idra and Nada had to stay up all night for this lol. I'm not quite sure if it's appropriate to criticize the behavior of another teams player if your players are doing the same. You didn't read the OP, I guess. your concerns (though not on the same matches) were already addressed by Alex. And Alex did not criticize Nani, he just tried to generalize the situation to make his point about losing/throwing meaningless match is not correct. | ||
|
monx
Canada1400 Posts
| ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
On December 15 2011 23:36 monx wrote: @Zocat there wasn't even one spectator since the game wasn't casted nor streamed. Then the job part as well as the league part still apply. To clarify: I agree with the majority of the post from Alex. I just have a problem following his logic with that example. | ||
|
ottersareneat
United States55 Posts
On December 15 2011 23:33 Zocat wrote: Can you explain how you can go from the eSport scenario B (Idra forfeiting & not playing games) to "In all scenarios the player [...] put on a show for the spectators"? The difference between "Professional sport" B and "eSport" B is exactly that. In one scenario the players put on a show - in the other not. Similiar to how Naniwa didnt put on a show. Edit: Misunderstood your point. OP is fine. eSports example B differs significantly from eSports example C in that in example B, IdrA had absolutely no effect on IPL's broadcast product, since the broadcast was running behind schedule and there wasn't enough time to broadcast all of the day's remaining matches anyway. Furthermore, IPL was in communication with IdrA regarding his decision to not play the White-Ra match, and IdrA's decision was allowed, both for the reason mentioned above, and because it was already very late at night, with the tournament running well behind schedule. | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
On December 15 2011 23:38 EGalex wrote: It's a typo in the OP. Thanks for finding it; I've fixed it. Ok explains it  Thank you! | ||
|
sixfour
England11060 Posts
| ||
|
HyperLethality
United States14 Posts
| ||
|
raheelp
United States54 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
| ||
