|
Every time there's an incident of this sort, like 90% of people base their arguments on what happens and how it's done in "other sports", which is completely unrelated and inconsequential to Starcraft. These analogies are neither accurate nor applicable.
That said, I do agree with the sentiment in OP personally.
However, this whole issue is really about taking sides based on your own principles, what you care about and what is the priority for you as a fan of Starcraft rather than determining who is really right (and wrong) . It's really about whether tournament, sponsors and viewers should take priority over competitors, or the other way around. Most people will lean towards one or the other, and form their opinion based on that.
Both sides will be right - they (we) just want different things.
|
On December 16 2011 08:26 turdburgler wrote:gom should of had filler content available to replace pointless matches because nani isnt going to want to play nestea for no reason (even if he had played the game out it would of been uncurtious of gom to ask nani to play in the first place).
If he wasn't going to play Nestea for no reason, when he knew that he may potentially have to play Nestea for no reason then he should not have accepted his invite to the tournament (read my post above). Blaming GOM is unreasonable... I could unreasonably blame Naniwa by saying: "Well, if Naniwa wanted all his games to matter then maybe he should've won his first three games." That's not a reasonable and fair accusation though. If you don't like the tournament structure, don't play in the tournament. But if you do decide to play in the tournament (as Naniway did) then don't go blaming the organization after the tournament, just because your performance led you to play the meaningless games that you knew you might potentially end up playing.
On December 16 2011 08:30 Talin wrote:
Every time there's an incident of this sort, like 90% of people base their arguments on what happens and how it's done in "other sports", which is completely unrelated and inconsequential to Starcraft. These analogies are neither accurate nor applicable.
These analogies are completely applicable because Starcraft 2 falls within the realm of sporting competitions and it should therefore be treated as one. How are they unrelated and inconsequential? Laws are based on precendence... The way we deal with other controversies is also based on what worked when dealing with previous similar controversies. By referencing them and using them as guides, we can better address today's issues. This applies to everything, not just sports... so I can't even begin to understand how you can propose that SC2 can't be compared to other sports. Your argument is equivalent to saying: "History is useless."... huh?
On December 16 2011 08:30 Talin wrote:
However, this whole issue is really about taking sides based on your own principles, what you care about and what is the priority for you as a fan of Starcraft rather than determining who is really right (and wrong) . It's really about whether tournament, sponsors and viewers should take priority over competitors, or the other way around. Most people will lean towards one or the other, and form their opinion based on that.
The audience/viewers always take priority over the competitors. This is pretty much an established fact (e.g. "The customer is always right"). Without the viewership and sponsorship there is no sport, there is no event, there is no GSL, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. (the list goes on and on and on). This is why what the viewers/customers/sponsors want almost always takes precedence over what the players want... because the players wouldn't be able to make a living without the financial backing of the viewers/customers/sponsors.
|
When it comes to complaining about the format I wish people would focus their complaints on the scene as a whole and not just GOM. The fact that Naniwa did it on GOM and not anywhere else really doesn't make the GOM system worse than the other tournaments that do the same.
IEM/DH/Assembly/IPL/GOM all use group stages where meaningless games are bound to happen. Don't single out GOM when complaining about a format. Classic example of result based reasoning, whereas the issue is the input, i.e. the format. This is not unique to GOM.
If you have an issue with the group formats as they exist you don't just have an issue with GOM. Don't focus your format hate only on them, but spread it out equally over every tournament format you disagree with.
Also, soccer's national leagues have plenty of matches near the end of the season that don't mean a thing, btw. So no it is not fixed in other professional sports.
|
On December 16 2011 08:34 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:26 turdburgler wrote:gom should of had filler content available to replace pointless matches because nani isnt going to want to play nestea for no reason (even if he had played the game out it would of been uncurtious of gom to ask nani to play in the first place). If he wasn't going to play Nestea for no reason, when he knew that he may potentially have to play Nestea for no reason then he should not have accepted his invite to the tournament (read my post above).
Naniwa qualified for the tournament. He wanted to win it. Why would he not play in it?
He showed up for every game and played according to his motivation and mental and physical state at the moment.
You can't force competitors to be motivated just to put on a show for you, they are not clowns. Which is why if you don't want to broadcast shit games, you make sure your format is optimal so you can broadcast only quality games where competitors will be in their perfect condition to play.
What GOM did is essentially not much different than what MLG does to be honest - their format is designed in a way that makes a lot of players literally pass out over and over again during the weekend. We've had cases of dehydration, cases of players being unable to find time to eat, sleep, or even shit without waiting in queues, players being misinformed about match scheduling, then being disqualified etc. As a consequence, a lot of players have shown clearly sub-par games at MLGs and didn't play even near their best.
If you want to have a good tournament, players are your GOD. You don't put them in booths exhausted, unmotivated and with no desire to play and you don't treat them as clowns that have to work for you and disqualify them from a spot they earned if they don't comply with such a bad treatment.
On December 16 2011 08:30 Talin wrote:
However, this whole issue is really about taking sides based on your own principles, what you care about and what is the priority for you as a fan of Starcraft rather than determining who is really right (and wrong) . It's really about whether tournament, sponsors and viewers should take priority over competitors, or the other way around. Most people will lean towards one or the other, and form their opinion based on that.
The audience/viewers always take priority over the competitors. This is pretty much an established fact (e.g. "The customer is always right"). Without the viewership and sponsorship there is no sport, there is no event, there is no GSL, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. (the list goes on and on and on). This is why what the viewers/customers/sponsors want almost always takes precedence over what the players want... because the players wouldn't be able to make a living without the financial backing of the viewers/customers/sponsors.[/QUOTE]
The financial backing comes from the viewers. The viewers (fanbase) decides what's important to them.
If a big majority of Starcraft fanbase had different priorities and decided that Naniwa was treated inappropriately when he was required to play an inconsequential game, then GOM made an incorrect business decision.
If a big majority of Starcraft fanbase considers what Naniwa did unacceptable, then GOM made the correct business decision because they satisfied their viewers (or at least appeased them).
Ultimately, if a the majority of fans considered competitors to be THE most important factor, then they would be and the sponsors and organizations would have to accept that. I'm simply "pulling" for such standards the same way you're pulling for yours.
|
On December 16 2011 08:44 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
When it comes to complaining about the format I wish people would focus their complaints on the scene as a whole and not just GOM. The fact that Naniwa did it on GOM and not anywhere else really doesn't make the GOM system worse than the other tournaments that do the same.
IEM/DH/Assembly/IPL/GOM all use group stages where meaningless games are bound to happen. Don't single out GOM when complaining about a format. Classic example of result based reasoning, whereas the issue is the input, i.e. the format. This is not unique to GOM.
If you have an issue with the group formats as they exist you don't just have an issue with GOM. Don't focus your format hate only on them, but spread it out equally over every tournament format you disagree with.
I agree with this. I see way too many posts about "I'm not buying a ticket anymore for GOM." In that case, you shouldn't be watching the vast majority of SC2 events since many of them feature meaningless games. Stop hating on just one particular organization that is structuring its tournaments like the vast majority of other organizations, unless you're willing to hate all organizations that employ similar tournament structures.
On December 16 2011 08:47 Talin wrote:
Naniwa qualified for the tournament. He wanted to win it. Why would he not play in it?
He should not have played in it if the tournament structure was against his moral code of how a tournament should be structured. You don't like a country, then leave it. You don't like a job, then quit. You don't like a tournament structure, then don't join this one and propose a revised structure for the next one.
On December 16 2011 08:47 Talin wrote:
If you want to have a good tournament, players are your GOD. You don't put them in booths exhausted, unmotivated and with no desire to play and you don't treat them as clowns that have to work for you and disqualify them from a spot they earned if they don't comply with such a bad treatment.
My dear friend, in the real world, money is God. If there is no money, there are no players and there is no tournament. So if a player is denying you viewership by not playing highly anticipated games, then you have a right to act accordingly with respect to such a player.
On December 16 2011 08:47 Talin wrote:
Ultimately, if a the majority of fans considered competitors to be THE most important factor, then they would be and the sponsors and organizations would have to accept that. I'm simply "pulling" for such standards the same way you're pulling for yours.
The majority of fans will always consider themselves to be the most important factor. Everyone cares about themselves... no one cares about anyone else. There hasn't ever been a case like the one you're proposing where "the fans consider the competitors to be the most important factor". There is no need to create hypothetical scenarios here... fans will always watch events for their OWN entertainment.
|
This is not GOM's fault. People are just trying to protect naniwa for being an immature brat. Nobody forced naniwa to play, if he wanted to forfeit he should have told GOM before the game started. It's not that naniwa didn't want to play a competitive match that was an issue, it was the fact that he climbed up into his booth without anyone expecting him to do something so utterly stupid on live broadcast. It's the fact that instead of not performing, he decided to climb up on stage and take a dump to embarrass the organization, players, and the tournament.
|
On December 16 2011 08:48 Kahuna. wrote:
My dear friend, in the real world, money is God. If there is no money, there are no players and there is no tournament. So if a player is denying you viewership by not playing highly anticipated games, then you have a right to act accordingly with respect to such a player.
People who generate income (viewers) decide who or what is God. That decision can still go either way.
You can consider yourself a "consumer" and look at the situation the way you look at it, for example. Or you can consider yourself a SC2 fan/player and respect your fellow player as a competitor and his condition and motivation instead.
It's a choice every follower of SC2 makes for himself. I personally wish for a community that had more fans than consumers - unlikely to happen, sure, but that doesn't mean it will change my personal standards in the slightest.
By the way, I find your patronising tone amusing, especially considering how wrong you are. Players and tournaments still exist with no money - the state of foreign BW shows that for example, as well as many other games that aren't so-called esports. There are always players, competitions and fans, as long as the game itself is good. It is good if the players can be financially rewarded for the work they put into the game and have an option to play the game for a living - but it is by no means a necessity, neither for players, nor for fans.
On December 16 2011 08:48 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 08:47 Talin wrote:
Ultimately, if a the majority of fans considered competitors to be THE most important factor, then they would be and the sponsors and organizations would have to accept that. I'm simply "pulling" for such standards the same way you're pulling for yours. The majority of fans will always consider themselves to be the most important factor. Everyone cares about themselves... no one cares about anyone else. There hasn't ever been a case like the one you're proposing where "the fans consider the competitors to be the most important factor". There is no need to create hypothetical scenarios here... fans will always watch events for their OWN entertainment.
That makes zero sense. I consider myself to be the most important factor, but I still consider players to be the most important factor within the context of the competitive Starcraft scene. Moreover, I am a player myself, as are most (vocal) fans. It doesn't mean everybody will share the consumer's entitlement attitude that you have, for example.
For me as a fan (who consider himself most important), it's more important that Nani is in a good condition, that he plays his Code S games, and continues to improve and compete against the top players in the world than watching one stupid game that has no competitive motivation behind it. Any external factor that gets in the way of that I see as a bad thing.
|
I think there should be some blame on the nature of Foreign teams as a whole also. Without an actual entity from a team there to support players they are bound to make idioit mistakes like the one NaNi did, if a coach or any representative looking out for the playerwas there I seriously doubt this would have happened.
|
On December 16 2011 09:05 Talin wrote:
By the way, I find your patronising tone amusing, especially considering how wrong you are. Players and tournaments still exist with no money - the state of foreign BW shows that for example, as well as many other games that aren't so-called esports. There are always players, competitions and fans, as long as the game itself is good.
Do you mean physically exist? Of course they do. I'm talking about the growth of E-Sports. The kind of growth that gets SC2 featured in The Economist (check out the most recent issue)... the kind of growth that will get SC2 hundreds of thousands of viewers. I'm not talking about the 50,000 or so hardcore BW fans who will watch BW until the very end. That is not growth, that is not exposure. That is just a few people who really love one thing.
When we talk about E-Sports growth, we're not talking about the mere existence of some players with a die-hard/hardcore hobby. In general, players won't play if there is no money... other than as a hobby. The reason the Korean scene dominated BW is because of the monetary reward that motivated those players. So sure, players would still physically exist in our world and they wouldn't vanish into thin air, but they most certainly would not be as competitive if it wasn't for the green... if you don't believe that, then I really can't say much else to convince you.
On December 16 2011 09:05 Talin wrote:
For me as a fan (who consider himself most important), it's more important that Nani is in a good condition, that he plays his Code S games, and continues to improve and compete against the top players in the world than watching one stupid game that has no competitive motivation behind it. Any external factor that gets in the way of that I see as a bad thing.
You're one in a million though. So GOM loses a million if they don't show that Naniwa's actions were unacceptable. GOM loses only you and a few others if they let Naniwa get away with his actions. You do the math and tell me which is better for GOM...
|
United States7481 Posts
On December 16 2011 07:50 omgimonfire15 wrote:[snip]
I beg to differ. There are many fans who want to see their favorite player play, even if it has no meaning. Why do you think so many people watch streams of Huk or Idra? Does that imply we don't care about the players or the game and only the implications behind the game? I will use NFL as another example.
But my overall point is that people do care about the game, even if you don't. There is not such thing as a meaningless game, especially in sports with fanbases such as this. Some people paid money and they want results.[snip]
I didn't dismiss this, I don't think. The colts-jags game will likely be broadcast only in markets local to those teams, but it won't be picked up for the big national audience, it won't be emphasized in pregame shows (other than maybe the winless factor), etc. Additionally, this game still does have implications for draft pick slots etc.
On December 16 2011 07:56 Kahuna. wrote:[snip]The mistake is not GOM's, the mistake is the player's for participating in a tournament that he did not like the structure of. It's like living in a country that you don't like. If you're unhappy with the government and aren't happy with the lifestyle then leave... it's not the country's fault, nor is it the country's responsibility to make you happy. Same with a job you don't like... quit and find another one. And I think that the same logic applies to tournaments... if you don't like the way its structured, go participate in a tournament whose structure makes you happy.[/snip]
I don't like how you're saying I can only like/support/participate in something if I find it absolutely perfect. I'm not saying a tournament should be condemned for making one mistake. If I like most of what somebody is doing, but find issue with part of it, why not support it and be open about how I think it could be improved?
As for all-star games, they are held to a different standard. There's nothing on the line, but nobody expects the players to try their hardest on defense. It's well understood that it's a for-fun event, not a end-all be-all who is the best showdown.
On December 16 2011 08:44 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
When it comes to complaining about the format I wish people would focus their complaints on the scene as a whole and not just GOM. The fact that Naniwa did it on GOM and not anywhere else really doesn't make the GOM system worse than the other tournaments that do the same.
IEM/DH/Assembly/IPL/GOM all use group stages where meaningless games are bound to happen. Don't single out GOM when complaining about a format. Classic example of result based reasoning, whereas the issue is the input, i.e. the format. This is not unique to GOM.
If you have an issue with the group formats as they exist you don't just have an issue with GOM. Don't focus your format hate only on them, but spread it out equally over every tournament format you disagree with.
Also, soccer's national leagues have plenty of matches near the end of the season that don't mean a thing, btw. So no it is not fixed in other professional sports.
I absolutely agree. I did not mean to imply this is a GOM-only problem, I just used them overwhelmingly in this blog because it was at their tournament that the recent incident happened. I also called out WCG and mentioned Assembly. IPL gave out prizes for 1st/2nd in pools but didn't differentiate between 3rd/4th. I can't mention literally every tournament ever and whether they did it right or wrong so I just used the ones I felt provided pertinent examples here.
|
On December 16 2011 09:15 Antoine wrote:
I don't like how you're saying I can only like/support/participate in something if I find it absolutely perfect. I'm not saying a tournament should be condemned for making one mistake. If I like most of what somebody is doing, but find issue with part of it, why not support it and be open about how I think it could be improved?
I just mean that you should refrain from participation until you address your issue and until that issue has been resolved. If however, you decide to participate, despite disagreeing with the format then you should refrain from disrespecting/dishonouring the tournament. Do one or the other... you know what I mean?
|
On December 16 2011 09:13 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 09:05 Talin wrote:
By the way, I find your patronising tone amusing, especially considering how wrong you are. Players and tournaments still exist with no money - the state of foreign BW shows that for example, as well as many other games that aren't so-called esports. There are always players, competitions and fans, as long as the game itself is good.
Do you mean physically exist? Of course they do. I'm talking about the growth of E-Sports. The kind of growth that gets SC2 featured in The Economist (check out the most recent issue)... the kind of growth that will get SC2 hundreds of thousands of views. I'm not talking about the 50,000 or so hardcore BW fans who will watch BW until the very end. That is not growth, that is not exposure. That is just a few people who really love one thing. When we talk about E-Sports growth, we're not talking about the mere existence of some players with a die-hard/hardcore hobby. In general, players won't play if there is no money... other than for a hobby. The reason the Korean scene dominated BW is because of the monetary reward that motivated those players. So sure, players would still physically exist in our world and they wouldn't vanish into thin air, but they most certainly would not be as competitive if it wasn't for the green... if you don't believe that, then I really can't say much else to convince you.
You're talking about growth of e-sports. I'm not talking about growth of e-sports. I'm talking about the specific case that involves GOM and Naniwa, which is the actual topic here. Don't assume we all approach the situation from the same angle here. Our opinions would be the same then to begin with.
By the way, Korean BW got big BEFORE major corporate sponsors got involved to the extent that they are involved now. It did not grow on marketing, exposure and hype from the beginning like Starcraft 2 did (which I believe is a fact that plays a huge role for the longevity of BW).
On December 16 2011 09:13 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 09:05 Talin wrote:
For me as a fan (who consider himself most important), it's more important that Nani is in a good condition, that he plays his Code S games, and continues to improve and compete against the top players in the world than watching one stupid game that has no competitive motivation behind it. Any external factor that gets in the way of that I see as a bad thing. You're one in a million though. So GOM loses a million if they don't show that Naniwa's actions were unacceptable. GOM loses only you and a few others if they let Naniwa get away with his actions. You do the math and tell me which is better for GOM...
One in a million is very inaccurate. I would say I'm one in 20% at the very least.
Also, the support Naniwa gets in this specific case is lesser than another player would get in the same situation, because Nani has a history of behaving like a dick. Even though this specific case is actually not an example of behaving like a dick, he's got a pretty long record before this. There are plenty of players that would get more support than Nani gets in this situation.
|
On December 16 2011 09:23 Talin wrote:
You're talking about growth of e-sports. I'm not talking about growth of e-sports. I'm talking about the specific case that involves GOM and Naniwa, which is the actual topic here. Don't assume we all approach the situation from the same angle here. Our opinions would be the same then to begin with.
By the way, Korean BW got big BEFORE major corporate sponsors got involved to the extent that they are involved now. It did not grow on marketing, exposure and hype from the beginning like Starcraft 2 did (which I believe is a fact that plays a huge role for the longevity of BW).
GOM's actions are based on their support for the growth of E-Sports though, and thus directly affects the discussion at hand.
And yes, before sponsorship and corporatization takes place there needs to be enough interest. But after that, to push the players to the limits of their abilities, you need money and reward. But, we digress.
On December 16 2011 09:23 Talin wrote:
One in a million is very inaccurate. I would say I'm one in 20% at the very least.
Also, the support Naniwa gets in this specific case is lesser than another player would get in the same situation, because Nani has a history of behaving like a dick. Even though this specific case is actually not an example of behaving like a dick, he's got a pretty long record before this.
That's life though. You gotta live with the consequences of your actions. You wanna be a 'bad boy', gotta live with the criticism that goes along with that. Naniwa understands that already.
And 20% is an overestimate, but even then the math still leads me to believe that GOM made the right decision.
|
|
|
|
|
When you're invited to play on one of the most prestigious tournament to compete with the best players of the year and then proceed to throw games it's extremely disrespectful to your opponent, to the viewers and to the broadcast company.
I have hard time blaming GOMtv for banning someone who show really bad manners, they sure felt offended by him.
|
On December 16 2011 09:26 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 09:23 Talin wrote:
You're talking about growth of e-sports. I'm not talking about growth of e-sports. I'm talking about the specific case that involves GOM and Naniwa, which is the actual topic here. Don't assume we all approach the situation from the same angle here. Our opinions would be the same then to begin with.
By the way, Korean BW got big BEFORE major corporate sponsors got involved to the extent that they are involved now. It did not grow on marketing, exposure and hype from the beginning like Starcraft 2 did (which I believe is a fact that plays a huge role for the longevity of BW). GOM's actions are based on their support for the growth of E-Sports though, and thus directly affects the discussion at hand.
GOM's actions are based on GOM's interests, which are based on what the audience wants (or more accurately, their perception of what the audience wants).
Which brings me back to my initial point - the audience decides what's important for them. E-sports will still grow as long as there is an audience, so in that context it really doesn't matter if the overwhelming support swings one way or the other, as long as GOM acts accordingly.
Although, I will add that if you are in the specific business of running competitions, it's always a good idea to uphold the integrity of competition and the competitors even when it goes against your immediate interest. The support of the majority is very fickle - with sports fans, treatment they want for the players they like is different for the treatment they want for the players they hate dislike. They are not rational and consistent. Naniwa was an easy target for GOM in this case - another player being treated the same way in the same situation would trigger a fuckton more backlash and perhaps we would have seen a different outcome.
|
On December 16 2011 09:32 Talin wrote:
GOM's actions are based on GOM's interests, which are based on what the audience wants (or more accurately, their perception of what the audience wants).
Which brings me back to my initial point - the audience decides what's important for them. E-sports will still grow as long as there is an audience, so in that context it really doesn't matter if the overwhelming support swings one way or the other, as long as GOM acts accordingly.
You're just rephrasing what I say. GOM's actions are based on GOM's interests... and GOM's interests lie in the growth of E-Sports because the growth of E-Sports leads to an increase in viewership for GOM. No need to come up with many ways to say the same thing. The growth of E-Sports depends on the satisfaction of the audience that subscribes to E-Sports. If the MAJORITY (you fall in the minority) of the audience is not satisfied, then E-Sports growth is stunted and potentially endangered. Thus, GOM decides to take the action that leads to the least dissatisfaction which is to punish Naniwa and not tolerate unacceptable behaviour, such as throwing away games.
|
yeh spot on!!! shame GOm hasnt taken any BLAME... things thats the biggest problem.This entire thing is turning into one big joke!!!
Hope next champion of champions we get a best of three format and a lsoers bracket :D
|
The sad thing about all this is if Naniwa had just tried to officially forfeit the proper way and inform GOM he wasn't going to play the game seriously none of this would have happened. Unfortunately he got in the booth without question, entered the game, waited until they set up everything to broadcast and proceeded to throw the match live on air. I can't really fault GOM for wanting to broadcast one of the most anticipated matches of the night assuming there were no problems from the players because they didn't speak up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
