|
On December 16 2011 04:59 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 04:49 DEN1ED wrote:
This kind of stuff happens all the time in real sports. Has anyone watched an NBA game between two of the bottom teams at the end of a season? It looks like a scrimmage. There is no defense being played and very minimal effort from the players. No one cries about it hurting the NBA though. It's just the nature of having to play meaningless games. It doesn't happen in the NBA. If Naniwa played a game, any sort of game, with limited effort, then that would be the same as what happens in the NBA. The NBA equivalent of this would be throwing the ball in your own basket all game long, which would lead to public outrage. It would not be accepted under the argument that players would have played with minimal effort anyways.
Throwing to your own basket is more like a-moving your own Nexus though...
I think giving up mentally before the game even started is not sportsmanlike, though it may not be a violation of rules. Whether you make it obvious or not only serve to hide the fact that you gave up and stopped caring. These pros are suppose to represent an inspiration for millions of amateurs who cheer them on. Boxer gets it, most Korean players get it, but many foreigners don't. They only think of it as a competition to win, they don't get what a huge difference it is to play in front of thousands of people.
|
I think you're assuming that all spectators are the same, and that what we want is a show, in order to make the point that, really, don't put too much attention on the tournament or tournament-format. I completely disagree. As a viewer of a tournament, I'm not primarily looking for a show. I'm looking for competition, for players fighting to decide who is the best. In the case of Naniwa and Nestea that part was over, and what was left was a show for the sake of the show.
Not that there's anything wrong with a show, but that wasn't why I was watching. What matters in a tournament is trying to win. In a show-match, that is no longer the main priority. To conflate the two simply produces bland content. The players don't care if they're winning, and their mindset is not on producing a show. The result is meaningless, bloodless and often plain bad, and, for that reason alone, tournament organizers should try their utmost to avoid the situation.
And really, I think the important thing to take from this whole debacle is not about the players (or about the individual). While I don't think what happened is a big deal, I recognize that others have a very different perspective. That many people feel offended by naniwa throwing the match. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a player not to offend (part of) the audience in this setting. That GOM should have thought of a way to rectify the situation without offending part of their customers is another point.
More importantly, I don't think your angle of attack on the problem leads to the best solution. You prefer to focus on the player, on 'professionalism'. But players, in a stressful and emotional situation, will keep acting rashly, without thought and keep on making mistakes. It's simply part of being human. It may not be Idra or naniwa the next time, but then it will be someone else. If you want to pragmatically change behavior, the far more efficient way is to design a better system in which the behavior takes place.
This is why the lesson from this episode should be for tournament organizers to put more effort and care into designing their tournament format. Having followed eports for many years, it is mind-boggling how often the format of competition seems to be an afterthought that was hashed out in the last minutes of the production. Bad formats produce perverse incentives for the players, and from that flows thrown matches and 'bad' behavior.
Really, it comes down to one single rule:
Avoid matches in which one or both players have no meaningful incentive to win.
This includes matches where one or more players are already out of the tournament or situations where a player can predict and influence his future opponent by the result of an upcoming match (if I lose this, I get the easier opponent).
If we could bring this rule forward, I think this whole situation may have been worth the trouble.
|
Why is it the responsibility of the player, and not of the tournament, to provide quality matches? The very best players have no intrinsic responsibility to practice long hours, travel to tournaments, or put forth maximum effort every game. They do these things because of the rewards involved. NaNiwa judged the rewards of playing hard not worth the cost, and correspondingly put forth the minimum required effort. The rewards aren't always monetary - reputation, prestige, and likeability are certainly important - but I think it's a gross overstatement to say that he violated some moral or 'professional' obligation to eSports or its fans. At most, he assessed the costs wrongly and made a bad decision.
NaNiwa has said that if he had to do it over again, he would just 4gate. Putting forth the marginal amount of additional effort wouldn't have made the game meaningful; all it would do is give him plausible deniability, which would have avoided this entire situation. As a viewer and a fan, I don't find plausible deniability particularly compelling, which is why I think that any changes in the future need to come from the organizations involved - the tournament and the team. We're already seeing those organizations exert their influence in the form of statements and (from GOM) punishment, but it seems heavy-handed at best. I think there's a much happier medium to be found in terms of tournament design, and perhaps in the team-player relationship as well.
EDIT: m0ck and I are on hivemind tech.
|
On December 16 2011 04:59 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 04:49 DEN1ED wrote:
This kind of stuff happens all the time in real sports. Has anyone watched an NBA game between two of the bottom teams at the end of a season? It looks like a scrimmage. There is no defense being played and very minimal effort from the players. No one cries about it hurting the NBA though. It's just the nature of having to play meaningless games. It doesn't happen in the NBA. If Naniwa played a game, any sort of game, with limited effort, then that would be the same as what happens in the NBA. The NBA equivalent of this would be throwing the ball in your own basket all game long, which would lead to public outrage. It would not be accepted under the argument that players would have played with minimal effort anyways.
They cannot do that in the NBA because the team only has one league to play in and the players has to perform every game because that's how they get a higher salary. Blizzcup was fine without this game and everyone knows Naniwa will perform in games that matter.
|
On December 15 2011 19:45 tar wrote:
When Idra played Mana in the IPL he called the game a "fucking joke" but more importantly Mana a " fucking idiot"
Up to today I cannot believe that this did not have a larger impact on the scene. Why wasn't Idra tapped on the shoulder for that one? Why wasn't there a public apology?
This is not meant to be some kind of idra-bashing but rather an expression of my utter bafflement how this could be acceptable on a pro level.
Professionalism in the context of your obligation to entertain your fans (by playing the game to a reasonable standard) and what not does not necessarily entail manners regarding opponents.
To draw the parallel to regular sports once again, some of the best sports players talk copious amounts of trashing during games. While they may put on a different face for the media, do you think Michael Jordan ever honestly mean any of backhanded praise he give in interviews after the game? He may not have said "They fucking suck" in an interview afterwards, but he was certainly thinking it. Only concerns about image and subsequent effects on sponsorship prevent him from doing more. And once his legacy was cemented, you saw it all come out. The man spent his HoF speech shaming people from 20 years ago.
Part of IdrA's appeal is that he's going to pretend to be someone he's not just because someone's recording him. And part of EG's appeal is that they let players be who they are. And I think it is a good part of the eSports community vs. regular sports fans that players are still marketable without having to put on a foolish nice guy front.
IdrA backs up his talk with consistently high performance, and many fans respect him precisely because he doesn't put on false pretenses.
On December 15 2011 22:21 LaoShuAiDaMi wrote:
what about EG.dota refusing to play at SMM loser bracket
To be fair boycotting is completely different from throwing; the DOTA team was protesting a terrible decision by the tournament management. And this was on top of the fact that MiTH admitted the error and offered to take the loss or rematch.
It wasn't about not caring/not playing.
If Nani had hypothetically destroyed all of Nestea's army and taken out some crucial tech structures, was about to go in for the kill when Nestea's computer crashed, and they made Naniwa rematch after Nestea admitted he probably would have lost... THEN probe rushed in protest, I imagine people would feel a bit differently.
On December 16 2011 01:47 Bonkarooni wrote:
They WOULD of broadcasted that match, and it would of drawn a huge crowd. Idra did excatly the same thing here. I was disappointed when I heard White Ra vs Idra was canceled, and I know many others were too.
On December 16 2011 05:01 Bonkarooni wrote:
Yeah, Idra was tired. Naniwa was tired...so how isnt it the same excat thing? Except idras match meant something to other people in the tournament, because him winning/losing could of changed seedings for everyone. So arguably, Idra's was worse.
Haypro thing you're right on though, my bad.
Just like above, it's important to take the context of the forfeit. Alex already explained that IdrA forfeited that match because he wanted to get some rest in. Naniwa just felt it was meaningless.
Also the tournament permitted IdrA to forfeit. If he drone rushed after they told him that no he couldn't forfeit, then the situation would be more comparable. And if Naniwa felt ill or had a reason to not play besides "It's meaningless."
|
On December 16 2011 03:01 iNcontroL wrote:
one of my favorite parts of this thread is going over all the posts that clearly didn't read the OP or probably any comments in this thread.. just scanned and posted.
"What about IdrA vs WhiteRa? GOTCHA"
lol
It's a long OP but worth the read btw if anyone is checking for the last page of the thread.. please read it <3
Not really. He left out a lot of things as I pointed out. If you gloss over it you'll be sure to miss it.
I'm tired of yes men.
|
On December 16 2011 05:13 Aro wrote:
Why is it the responsibility of the player, and not of the tournament, to provide quality matches? The very best players have no intrinsic responsibility to practice long hours, travel to tournaments, or put forth maximum effort every game. They do these things because of the rewards involved. NaNiwa judged the rewards of playing hard not worth the cost, and correspondingly put forth the minimum required effort. The rewards aren't always monetary - reputation, prestige, and likeability are certainly important - but I think it's a gross overstatement to say that he violated some moral or 'professional' obligation to eSports or its fans. At most, he assessed the costs wrongly and made a bad decision.
NaNiwa has said that if he had to do it over again, he would just 4gate. Putting forth the marginal amount of additional effort wouldn't have made the game meaningful; all it would do is give him plausible deniability, which would have avoided this entire situation. As a viewer and a fan, I don't find plausible deniability particularly compelling, which is why I think that any changes in the future need to come from the organizations involved - the tournament and the team. We're already seeing those organizations exert their influence in the form of statements and (from GOM) punishment, but it seems heavy-handed at best. I think there's a much happier medium to be found in terms of tournament design, and perhaps in the team-player relationship as well.
EDIT: m0ck and I are on hivemind tech.
You can't be more wrong on the first point. Have you forgotten that they are salaried players? The tournament prizes are just a bonus to what the teams (sponsors, fans) are paying them. It is your job, and yes it is the your responsibility. When you get hired to be a professional at anything, you can't decide not to show up for work arbitrarily just because you didn't feel like it.
Even on the 4 gate vs probe rush thing, I don't think Naniwa gets it. There are probably thousands of people who would love to give it their all to play on the main stage even if the match has no consequence whatsoever (which is still debatable). The very basic fact that he said he would 4 gate the next time tells you he's not interested in proving his skills his fans / opponents. Just look at the twitter responses posted here from the Korean players. IMHO if a player does not appreciate the spotlight he's been given, then he does not deserve it.
I agree that spotlighting a match that does not affect the final outcome of the tournament is a flawed design, but it has nothing to do with how a professional player should behave under these circumstances.
|
United States23455 Posts
I find that I agree with this thread even though my previous opinion was that it wasn't a big deal and was within Naniwa's rights to basically forfeit that game. However, I think your statistics may be off. You say it seems that 70 percent believe it was unacceptable and 30 percent believe that it was acceptable. However, in the poll on the TL home page it says:
What do you think of Naniwa vs Nestea?
Disappointing but no big deal (4425) 40%
Completely unacceptable (2683) 24%
Understandable (2602) 24%
Completely justified (1260) 11%
So I think that it might be closer to even in opinion. This one poll isn't indicative of the whole of the starcraft community, but I think you overestimate how many people found this unacceptable. Still a great thread, obviously a lot of research and effort went into it.
|
Very articulate blog, I agree with almost all of the points you brought out.
|
On December 16 2011 05:13 m0ck wrote:
Avoid matches in which one or both players have no meaningful incentive to win.
This then begs the question: What is a meaningful incentive to win?
To some of us, the answer may be to please the fans; to show good games. To some of us, the answer may be to win tournaments. To some of us, the answer may be to keep rivalries alive.
I feel that if NaNiwa and NesTea were to play each other at any other time (with or without a tournament on the line), winning would have been of paramount importance to both players. There is already a "rivalry" brewing between the two. NaNiwa vz. NesTea is currently a hot match-up.
However in this particular situation, both players *felt* that they were playing for nothing. I sincerely feel that if these players were given any reasonable amount of time to mentally overcome their prior defeats and focus on the approaching match, we would have seen something completely different.
|
The first thing that strikes me (thats an underlined me). Is that as a swede I do not think of the sports industry (not just E-sports) as an industry, nor as a way for the organizers, sponsors, tournament hosts or sports teams to make money.
As a swede, sports, gaming, competing and the like is for pure enjoyment, for the fun, for the competition itself and for the individuals interested in the individual stages of the whole scene (team organizers, organizers in general, coaches etc etc) and this does not include anyone who's interest in the scene is the money. Profit has nothing to do with the scene (this is ofc not totally true, but the general idea and guidelines in these sorts of problems is not as much sided towards the "industry" as it is towards the ones interested.
The most notable difference and the most influential reason for this different cultural base is possibly the way sports leagues are managed in the states. For those not common with this; the leagues, baseball for example, is really a corporate business, and the right to "have" a team in the league is gained by buying "stocks" in the business. Then this showbiz gets cash and distributes it among the "owners" in different ways.
In Sweden, this is as far away from the way it is organized as one can get, and also, I assume, for many Swedes (myself included) disgusting. I mean, I get sick in the stomach, for realz. To treat the sportsmen, the ones who really make up this, whos passion, skill, engagement, training, ..lifes. As a way to profit. It is so ... well... american, I guess.
Here the leagues are free for anyone as long as they can compete, league spots are solely gained based on performance and relegation is mainly only possible due to cheating or by crime.
Tournaments, competitions and the like, go by the same idea, the sportsmen are the ones in focus, the money-mongers is an ugly side effect.
I do not intend to really make up a new system for the tournament organization, I am mainly theorizing over why Naniwa did what he did.
I for one. Do not think he meant for anyone to get hurt (financially hurt in this case).
I only think he was a sportsman.
Where "some" wanted him to be a showpiece.
(Also, some would argue, the tournament should get punished by a lower viewer rate if their tournament has a problematic format for the players to do their best, not punish the players for not following the puppeteers strings to their liking.)
|
On December 16 2011 00:58 SirScoots wrote:
You had me at Please...
<3
|
On December 16 2011 03:04 nakam wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 17:51 EGalex wrote:
This is why, of all the controversial situations that IdrA's been involved in, the only time I felt the need to intervene was when he forfeited a match that was being streamed live to thousands of spectators.* How about that time Idra forfeited 7/8th place match vs. Haypro, a game what wasn't meaningless at all? Would it be appropriate to ban him from next MLG?
IdrA to be banned from the next MLG? Are you serious? Is forfeiting illegal now? Missing a match to be punished more strongly than by losing said match?
Instead of dropping to the losers bracket, I guess WhiteRa should have been banned from the event for missing his matches at MLG?
|
I'd like to open up first of all that I agree very much so with all of EGAlex’s points.
The sports entertainment industry, like many other things, are ultimately businesses. I pay money to watch SC2. Sponsors pay money because there are people who are willing to play SC2. Ad revenue comes in because people are watching SC2. This is a job, yes for the players too.
In an ideal world, all competitive sports environments (including ones where people are paid) would be as pure as possible, allowing for meaningful and heartfelt competition where everyone gives their best at all times. This, however, does not translate into reality. Professionals of all stripes, not just in sports, are paid to do a job. It is a wonderful thing when your passions and personal goals can coincide with what you do professional but when push comes to shove as a professional, you are obligated to do the job you are paid for. This is the core of any work ethic.
That is not to say that I believe Naniwa should be ‘turned into some corporate zombie’. I understand Naniwa was very upset, and I understand that he would not have been able to play the game. At that point, if the game was played or not did not matter, since he physically and emotionally could not do it. I did not want a fake game nor I did not want a probe rush.
Other professional players in his situation would have played the game, and they would not have faked it. They may not have played their best, and understandably so, but they would have played the game with the intent of winning. The fact that the perceived choice for Naniwa either faking it or not playing at all is part of the problem. Remember: people paid to see SC2 games, sponsors paid to have Naniwa give them exposure, Gom offered prize money for players to play SC2 games. Naniwa needed to fulfill his obligations as a professional to deliver those games. If he cannot, he simply should not be a professional SC2 player.
Esports is still growing and trying to find itself. It is clear that what people, sponsors, leagues and tournaments expect and are willing to pay for is different for each individual and organization. Ultimately, the industry as a whole will move over to whatever pays the most, or if the pie is large enough, provide different products for different customer segments. In a sense this is what is happening already with the GSL being very different from MLG/IPL/etc. Ultimately at the end of the day, viewers and sponsors vote with their wallets. If the GSL suffers significantly from lost ticket sales and sponsorships, you can bet that they will change their tournament formats.
What do I pay for? I pay to see SC2 games played. That is what I expect, and that is what I expect to see from professional players. What I saw between Naniwa and Nestea was not a game of SC2. If all Naniwa wants to do is play games to win titles then that is his prerogative, but he cannot do so as a professional player, and especially not at a GSL-sponsored event. I don’t want a game where he can claim plausible deniability. If that is the stance he takes, my stance is rather simple: he should not be playing professionally.
I think Naniwa’s apology shows he now understands that being a professional means more than just playing to win. I understand why Naniwa did what he did, and sympathized with his situation during the tournament. I think the tournament format can be improved and organizers should strive as much as possible to avoid such situations in the future. I don’t think Naniwa deserved the specific punishment he received, but I also understand that he needed to be chastised in some way. Regardless of any of the above, none of this excuses him for not performing as a professional in a professional capacity.
I do think Naniwa is on the right track now, and I do look forward to seeing more great SC2 from him.
|
Thank you Alex! I made a Twitter rant discussing the exact same thing the morning of the whole Naniwa incident. I basically summed it down to: ESPORTS is an entertainment industry, and bad entertainment is bad for business. CP of my Twitter posts:
stormfoxSC: Weird to see people defend Johan's decision to probe rush Jae Duk in the Blizzard Cup. More than a game; it's a paid job for him. ( permalink)
stormfoxSC: Basically said "I don't want to do my job anymore today". This is the entertainment business, bad entertainment is bad for business. ( permalink)
stormfoxSC: What's bad for business is bad, period. GOMTV production has to convince people to watch their show; how do they when games are like that? ( permalink)
stormfoxSC: If I were a decision maker over at GOM, I would seriously consider banning Johan; he's not good for ROI, and doesn't produce results anyway. ( permalink)
NOTE: To clarify the previous tweet, I'm referring specifically to his tournament results in the GSL. He's now something like 0-10?
stormfoxSC: Might seem harsh from a people perspective, but from a business perspective it's not entirely unreasonable. ( permalink)
stormfoxSC: If I were running a business that had direct customer contact, and an employee caused customers to leave, I would tell him to take a hike. ( permalink)
stormfoxSC: All in all, just very unprofessional by Johan, and that is why Koreans are in an uproar over his probe rush. He's affecting THEIR industry. ( permalink)
|
Thank god someone with reason :D
|
On December 15 2011 18:25 chadissilent wrote:
NaNiwa enters game, forfeits. IdrA doesn't enter game, forfeits. How about his forfeits at MLG Providence against Haypro? I fail to see the difference.
User was temp banned for this post.
Thanks for that Drone. please read before you don't need to always criticize peopls posts to prove them wrong grow up man
|
On December 16 2011 05:34 mvhtnb wrote:
The first thing that strikes me (thats an underlined me). Is that as a swede I do not think of the sports industry (not just E-sports) as an industry, nor as a way for the organizers, sponsors, tournament hosts or sports teams to make money.
As a swede, sports, gaming, competing and the like is for pure enjoyment, for the fun, for the competition itself and for the individuals interested in the individual stages of the whole scene (team organizers, organizers in general, coaches etc etc) and this does not include anyone who's interest in the scene is the money. Profit has nothing to do with the scene (this is ofc not totally true, but the general idea and guidelines in these sorts of problems is not as much sided towards the "industry" as it is towards the ones interested.
The most notable difference and the most influential reason for this different cultural base is possibly the way sports leagues are managed in the states. For those not common with this; the leagues, baseball for example, is really a corporate business, and the right to "have" a team in the league is gained by buying "stocks" in the business. Then this showbiz gets cash and distributes it among the "owners" in different ways.
In Sweden, this is as far away from the way it is organized as one can get, and also, I assume, for many Swedes (myself included) disgusting. I mean, I get sick in the stomach, for realz. To treat the sportsmen, the ones who really make up this, whos passion, skill, engagement, training, ..lifes. As a way to profit. It is so ... well... american, I guess.
Here the leagues are free for anyone as long as they can compete, league spots are solely gained based on performance and relegation is mainly only possible due to cheating or by crime.
Tournaments, competitions and the like, go by the same idea, the sportsmen are the ones in focus, the money-mongers is an ugly side effect.
I do not intend to really make up a new system for the tournament organization, I am mainly theorizing over why Naniwa did what he did.
I for one. Do not think he meant for anyone to get hurt (financially hurt in this case).
I only think he was a sportsman.
Where "some" wanted him to be a showpiece.
(Also, some would argue, the tournament should get punished by a lower viewer rate if their tournament has a problematic format for the players to do their best, not punish the players for not following the puppeteers strings to their liking.)
Hey, first off, i want to say good job on not showing bias in every single sentence of your post. it must've been hard.
second, that's exactly what he's being called out for. not being a "sportsman". its a matter of responsibility as a progamer. but not all responsibility is quantified and labeled under the category of that dirty disgusting (and American right?) financial incentive.
|
I completly support Naniwas decision not to play out the game against Nestea. No matter the sports I always think its extremly painfull to watch teams play out games that doesent matter,.and im supprised that tournaments dont have the option to forfeit meaningless games beforehand. Its just anoying to see a half assed 4gate in a game u know the players dont realy care about. And i dont think u can do the comparisson with a none e-sports team playing out a meaningless match. in teamsport they usualy use the match to give unexperienced player the chance to play in front of a crowd while letting the best players sitt on the bench to not risk injury. And for Naniwa not doing his part for the tournament and esport, this insident probobly gave more publicity to gom Naniwa and his team then any "real" game would have.
|
On December 16 2011 05:50 Truthful wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 05:34 mvhtnb wrote:
The first thing that strikes me (thats an underlined me). Is that as a swede I do not think of the sports industry (not just E-sports) as an industry, nor as a way for the organizers, sponsors, tournament hosts or sports teams to make money.
As a swede, sports, gaming, competing and the like is for pure enjoyment, for the fun, for the competition itself and for the individuals interested in the individual stages of the whole scene (team organizers, organizers in general, coaches etc etc) and this does not include anyone who's interest in the scene is the money. Profit has nothing to do with the scene (this is ofc not totally true, but the general idea and guidelines in these sorts of problems is not as much sided towards the "industry" as it is towards the ones interested.
The most notable difference and the most influential reason for this different cultural base is possibly the way sports leagues are managed in the states. For those not common with this; the leagues, baseball for example, is really a corporate business, and the right to "have" a team in the league is gained by buying "stocks" in the business. Then this showbiz gets cash and distributes it among the "owners" in different ways.
In Sweden, this is as far away from the way it is organized as one can get, and also, I assume, for many Swedes (myself included) disgusting. I mean, I get sick in the stomach, for realz. To treat the sportsmen, the ones who really make up this, whos passion, skill, engagement, training, ..lifes. As a way to profit. It is so ... well... american, I guess.
Here the leagues are free for anyone as long as they can compete, league spots are solely gained based on performance and relegation is mainly only possible due to cheating or by crime.
Tournaments, competitions and the like, go by the same idea, the sportsmen are the ones in focus, the money-mongers is an ugly side effect.
I do not intend to really make up a new system for the tournament organization, I am mainly theorizing over why Naniwa did what he did.
I for one. Do not think he meant for anyone to get hurt (financially hurt in this case).
I only think he was a sportsman.
Where "some" wanted him to be a showpiece.
(Also, some would argue, the tournament should get punished by a lower viewer rate if their tournament has a problematic format for the players to do their best, not punish the players for not following the puppeteers strings to their liking.) Hey, first off, i want to say good job on not showing bias in every single sentence of your post. it must've been hard. second, that's exactly what he's being called out for. not being a "sportsman". its a matter of responsibility as a progamer. but not all responsibility is quantified and labeled under the category of that dirty disgusting (and American right?) financial incentive.
I did start out with underlining the "me" part.  .
But I beg to differ.
He did not get called out due to bad sportsmanship, bad sportsmanship hurts the sport not the industry.
He was called out for being bad for business.
What was bad for the sport was the bad tournament format.
This is where the terminology gets messed up due to different cultural backgrounds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
