|
United States7481 Posts
The date was June 25th 1982. On a pitch in Gijon, Spain, 22 men purposelessly kicked a ball around for 80 minutes. It resembled football (soccer for us Americans), but couldn’t really be called as such.
Fans of one team burned their own flag in protest. Fans of a team not playing in the game attempted to storm the field to voice their protest.
In this disgraceful match between West Germany and Austria, the two sides only acted as humans might. If West Germany won by three or more goals, Austria would come in 3rd place in the group to Algeria. In the case of a tie or Austrian win, the powerhouse West German side would be sent home early. The two sides evidently engineered a détente of sorts, with neither team putting in any real effort after a West German goal in the first 10 minutes.
This historical example doesn’t bear directly on the recent NaNiwa controversy. It’s more similar to cases where players attempt to lose their last match in group play to engineer brackets more favorably for them, as has happened in both SC1 and SC2 before. In 2007 WCG Grand Finals,  Stork, White-Ra, and  Ex were in tiebreakers for 1st/2nd/3rd of their group, and both Stork (a Korean, who as a people numerous commentators recently said would never do such a thing) and White-Ra (who MC pointed to as a shining example of everything that is right in the world) were under suspicion of throwing matches so they could get 2nd place and avoid a potential 2nd round matchup with Korean terran Hwasin. This past year at Assembly, nobody could say BratOK or Stephano were playing their hardest, with the winner having to face Sen in brackets and the loser up against less-scary Sarens. In neither case was anything proven, nor did the competitors admit to throwing, but the suspicion was there.
In NaNiwa’s case, he had to play out a game he at the time considered pointless. According to his statements since, he’s realized the greater impact of that game outside simply the standings, but his original perspective can be understood. It’s not the first case where somebody doesn’t want to keep playing after they’re out of the tournament – people skip MLG tiebreakers all the time, stop showing up for NASL, and so forth.
It's not like people want to watch meaningless games, either. Attendance for losing teams is way lower than for winning teams, across all major sports and all markets. The national TV spots go to the crucial games for deciding the playoffs, not the bottomfeeders. I don't have the NASL numbers, but I'm willing to bet that all else held equal, numbers for meaningless regular season games are lower than those that still affect playoff prospects.
People can argue until they’re blue in the face about whether NaNiwa was justified in what he did, or whether GOM handed down the right punishment, or anything about what happened and the aftermath. The fact of the matter is that this never should have happened in the first place. After that farce of a soccer match, the World Cup changed its rules so both final matches in a group were played simultaneously, curbing bracket engineering.
Starcraft event organizers need to take similar steps. WCG still hasn’t changed its rules, 4 years after allegations of match throwing to affect brackets at the 2007 Grand Finals. There are solutions to the problem - the World Cup displays one, IPL3 shows another with its randomized brackets and prizes for pool placements. GOM has cancelled no-longer-relevant matches before in its up-down round robins. They may have thought it’d be different this time because it’s the end of year wrapup tournament, but the fact of the matter is that the onus is on tournament organizers to prevent this sort of situation. They can idealize all they want about the competitive spirit, but they need to understand that their competitors are human, and what the consequences are of that, and design their format around it.
GOM's big mistake wasn't in how they handled the incident, it was the fact that they allowed the situation in which it happened in the first place. But that's OK, every tournament organizer makes mistakes. The good ones learn from them and constantly improve. Moving into 2012, it's crucial that tournaments don't forget the lessons from this incident. No player can be counted on to play their absolute best under all circumstances, so identify if you're creating situations where they won't. Once you've done that, either figure out how to fix it, or if you can't do that easily, highlight other matches instead.
  
|
This is a really good point. I do hope that GOM realizes it's own faults and fixes them for future tournament formats.
|
Australia8532 Posts
Your last 2 paragraphs are perfect. Everyone is kind of tired of arguing back and forth whether or not Naniwa was punished to harshly or not. The main point is that GOM (and Naniwa) learn from this event and do everything in their power to ensure it never happens again.
It doesn't validate Nani's actions, but it must be a serious consideration for tournaments going forward.
|
GOM's second big mistake was changing the format of the GSL-MLG exchange program without notifying MLG. These two mistakes have made me decide to email GOM telling them I won't be buying any tickets in 2012.
|
I disagree entirely. The only person involved who believed that the match was meaningless was Naniwa. GOM's intent to broadcast all games when they have a history of skipping up/down games only further illustrates that they saw meaning in all of the scheduled matchups.
|
On December 16 2011 05:57 ggofthejungle wrote:
GOM's second big mistake was changing the format of the GSL-MLG exchange program without notifying MLG. These two mistakes have made me decide to email GOM telling them I won't be buying any tickets in 2012.
I think that's a bit much because as Sundance said it was completely within GOM's right to do that. That said, do what you think is better.
|
Great blog, I'm reposting part of a reply to the blog by EGAlex. He touched on the subject in the context of the naniwa-case, but put emphasis on the responsibility of the players rather than on tournament formats. A big mistake, I think.
On December 16 2011 05:13 m0ck wrote:
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.
|
Round robins have their pros and cons. Pro, everyone plays everyone so people can't get lucky and have an easier set of matches to advance. Con, sometimes the games are irrelevant or affect other players' results. What I don't buy at all is shifting blame for throwing the match from Naniwa, who made his decision and was responsible for 99% of the situation, to the format.
Gom's real mistake was taking away the Code-S seed in a shady manner, without even notifying MLG that they were changing their policy.
|
Hearing these allegations against Whitera hurts. He is kind of like the Harvey Dent of SC2, if he was implicated in a scandal like that, it would crush the spirit of the community.
|
I agree with you, furthermore I believe that GOMTV did acknowledge this issue, in their announcement regarding naniwa they wrote We promise that we will work hard to provide tournament formats that will lead players to do their best in every match and to create a GSL that will allow fans to enjoy and experience the competition as something that has more to it than just professionals trying to make a living.
So hopefully as you said they won't forget the lessons from this incident.
|
On December 16 2011 06:16 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Round robins have their pros and cons. Pro, everyone plays everyone so people can't get lucky and have an easier set of matches to advance. Con, sometimes the games are irrelevant or affect other players' results. What I don't buy at all is shifting blame for throwing the match from Naniwa, who made his decision and was responsible for 99% of the situation, to the format.
Gom's real mistake was taking away the Code-S seed in a shady manner, without even notifying MLG that they were changing their policy.
From my point of view, this issue is not about Naniwa. It's about avoiding another Naniwa. The individual case is over and done, and it's no longer very interesting (though I very much agree that GOM, and maybe also MLG, is having an embarrassing and damaging moment of telling non-truths). Rather, the focus should be of how to avoid a situation similar to what we saw with naniwa, where a player, with no incentive to play, throws a match (whether its very obvious or hidden behind a minimum of effort), or a situation like the one described by Antoine, where players can predict and influence their future opponent, and thus have something to gain by throwing a match.
|
Although playing 'meaningless matches' were somewhat of an issue in the past, it's only risen as a huge issue now because of the incident. I don't think tournament organizers had this kind of scenario in mind, not because they were careless, but because they took it for granted that all matches will be 'played' - just like in the past. Now that we have an example / a reference point to look back at, I'm sure appropriate measures will be made in future tournaments so that the same controversy does not rise again. We can look at it as a wake-up call, so to speak.
I feel bad for Naniwa that he lost a golden opportunity, something he may not earn again without significant effort and luck. Still, I can't imagine GOM would have done anything else - the GSL is their tournament, and due to the offences taken, they wouldn't just roll over and let him in anyway. If they upheld the seed for Naniwa, there would have been enough flak from the Korean community to take down the entire tournament. If the consequences didn't matter, I would say that a warning would have sufficed. However, the repercussions of allowing him to be seeded into Code S after such an incident are likely enough to destroy GSL, all from the pressures of the Korean community and the Korean sponsors.
In that sense, I would call this a lose-lose until we see two things happen:
- GOM restructuring their tournaments and rules - may not necessarily mean there won't be any more 'meaningless matches' - but it should allow competitors to play in an environment where expectations are clear
- Naniwa getting his act together
|
Last two paragraphs are golden.
Don't competitors sign contracts that explain exactly what the prize is?
|
On December 16 2011 06:21 Bagration wrote:
Hearing these allegations against Whitera hurts. He is kind of like the Harvey Dent of SC2, if he was implicated in a scandal like that, it would crush the spirit of the community.
White-ra only purposely lost his matches against Ex because stork was throwing his games against white-ra, and he wanted it to be a fair competition. So, White-ra is awesome. White-ra is always awesome.
|
United States7481 Posts
On December 16 2011 05:58 Wren wrote:
I disagree entirely. The only person involved who believed that the match was meaningless was Naniwa. GOM's intent to broadcast all games when they have a history of skipping up/down games only further illustrates that they saw meaning in all of the scheduled matchups.
That match specifically sure, maybe because of the past history of nani vs nestea, but this is about the general case.
|
I think your examples aren't surprising, considering the reality of situations across sports and competitions in general. Naniwa (and other players with similar mindsets) only cared about winning the tournament, not to please the audience or be loved by fans. That's just the way he plays the game, and if he loses, he wants to move on to another tournament. His personality is more lackluster compared to other players, and he only cares about doing well. He focuses on winning, not being the fan favorite.
On December 16 2011 05:58 Wren wrote:
I disagree entirely. The only person involved who believed that the match was meaningless was Naniwa. GOM's intent to broadcast all games when they have a history of skipping up/down games only further illustrates that they saw meaning in all of the scheduled matchups.
It depends on what you mean by meaningless. For entertainment purposes, it could have been fun. However, it's an absolute fact that it has zero meaning as far as the progression of the tournament went, and that's all Naniwa cared about. He came to win, and that chance was over after he lost three straight games. And that's that. You can't force someone to try when they've already lost focus on something because they've lost. Other players might want to play other showmatches just for fun, but that's not the way Naniwa works.
People derive meaning from things for different reasons. We could definitely be mad at Naniwa for throwing the match because it meant something to us, but it's irrelevant if it meant nothing to him for certain reasons, because he's the one playing the match. He might understand where we're coming from, but it's nice to understand where he's coming from too.
|
On December 16 2011 05:35 Antoine wrote:
It's not like people want to watch meaningless games, either. Attendance for losing teams is way lower than for winning teams, across all major sports and all markets. The national TV spots go to the crucial games for deciding the playoffs, not the bottomfeeders. I don't have the NASL numbers, but I'm willing to bet that all else held equal, numbers for meaningless regular season games are lower than those that still affect playoff prospects.
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.
Colts will play Jags is a week or so. both are eliminated from playoffs, and if they lose, they can get a better draft pick (well, even if the colts win they will probably get first overall pick).
Now before we go into this, people have been saying "oh, they don't play their hardest so its the same as naniwa!" No it is not. Yes the teams don't play their hardest and may bench their better players and send out others. But this is still constructive in some ways, they can get their newer players experience, can try new plays, and the b-teamers try their hardest to prove themselves. And if they do play their players, the players play for the enjoyment of the thousands of fans watching. Naniwa could have treated it as a practice match or a showmatch for himself or the viewers. what he did is like kneeling on every single play.
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.
But in general, I agree with the post that GOM and Naniwa shoud learn from this experience and both should make better decisions. I think what Jinro said, a fine for breaking the rule, would have been a more fair practice. However, Naniwa himself stated that he is not participating in the next GSL season although he could potentially make it into code s all the way from the qualifiers. I guess everyone is realizing the magnitude of their mistakes.
|
While I understand your viewpoint and I do think that it would benefit everyone if the tournament structure was such that all games matter, I would not say GOM made a mistake. Meaningless games must be played all the time in numerous sports. Any city with a shitty sports team knows that... There are rules that clearly do not allow teams to forfeit matches and if teams decide to do so, they would be penalized through fines and/or suspensions.
GOM is allowed to structure its tournaments in any way it pleases and it is also allowed to penalize players if the organizations feels that a player has disrespected or dishonoured its tournament. If a player seriously has a problem with the structure of a tournament then instead of participating in it, he should make explicit his concern with the tournament structure and give up his spot in the tournament due to his dislike of the structure. If a player knows that his performance in the tournament could eventually lead him to play meaningingless games and he foresees himself throwing away such meaningless games then he should not participate in the tournament. Therefore, I would say that it is Naniwa's mistake for not recognizing that he may eventually play meaningless games in the tournament; and thus, if he SO STRONGLY disagrees with this structure then he should've given up his spot to a player who was more willing to live with the tournament structure.
To fault GOM for its tournament structure is unfair when numerous other organizations (across all sports) have structures that lead to the playing of meaningless matches. A player should take the time to analyze the structure of a tournament before participating in it... If the way the tournament is structured goes against the player's 'moral code' regarding tournament structure then he/she should not participate in such a tournament. 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.
-------------------
I would also urge many of you who are interested about the viewpoints on this issue to read EGAlex's opinion on TL. He provides a very business-focussed outlook on the issue, one that I think has been under-represented on many of the current TL threads:
+ Show Spoiler +A Different Perspective on The NaNiwa Controversy - by: EGAlexHere's a short excerpt from EGAlex's blog that is somewhat related to the topic of this current blog: "For those of you who, after reading this, agree that NaNi's actions were unacceptable, but still blame GOM for utilizing a format which allows for inconsequential matches, I would ask you to consider holding players to higher standards of professionalism; and to also consider the fact that it's not GOM's responsibility to cater their format solely to suit players. GOM's job (as is the case with any professional sports league) is to provide a quality product to its viewers, while providing its competitors with fair, reasonable playing conditions, and the Blizzard Cup's format balanced these factors acceptably. Additionally, I would also point out the fact that, as illustrated above, every major professional sports league utilizes a format in which there are meaningless games. By your logic, All-Star games shouldn't even exist."
|
I totally agree with the poster above. If you have such a problem with it then why are you there in the first place
|
i think a lot of people are overstating how much they just want to watch the game be played. its no secret that attendance and viewership for friendlies in any sport are lower than "real" games. not caring about meaningless games (or caring less in a huge spectrum) is not specific to starcraft or naniwa.
many of the points brought up on sotg really hit the nail on the head for me. naniwas choice was not optimal, but neither was goms decision to have a stupid format. the majority of the mud throwers (which now includes gom) are quick to say naniwas suboptimal decision deserves punishment, and yet there will be no punishment for gom from this.
it seems like gom really threw nani to the wolves, casting all blame on him in their public speech, bringing up their ideals of a pro gamer, which are both completely internal as well as obviously false (match fixing anyone?). the whole thing kinda makes me sad. as antione brought up briefly, plenty of people have flat out not shown up to games at mlg etc which no longer matter and nothing was brought up about it. 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).
|
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.
|
On December 16 2011 09:36 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +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 lead to 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 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.
That is true.
However I still have the right to try to make my minority become the majority by demonstrating how wrong, selfish, entitled and inconsiderate the majority is (in my opinion).
So that the next time something similar happens, GOM might look at the initial reactions of the audience and think to themselves "well, we screwed this up when we designed this tournament, let's protect this player's image because we need him".
Or even better, they would think "hey, let's make this tournament good for the players so that they're always motivated to play and can play in their top condition, because our audience will appreciate that the most".
|
i dont think this could possibly be considered harsh, if he deserves to be in code S hell get in code S this seasoncode s is ridic easy to get into now
if he cant get into code s then he didnt deserve to be in there and his game against NesTea is just proof hes not willing to put in the effort to be a true pro
|
On December 16 2011 09:40 Talin wrote:
That is true.
However I still have the right to try to make my minority become the majority by demonstrating how wrong, selfish, entitled and inconsiderate the majority is (in my opinion).
So that the next time something similar, GOM might look at the reactions of the audience and think to themselves "well, we screwed this up when we designed this tournament, let's protect this player's image because we need him".
You're right, but most viewers don't think from a players perspective because they're not PRO players. They just sit at home and play the game for enjoyment. You are among the few (I would say VERY few) who approach this situation from a PRO player's perspective despite not being a pro yourself.
GOM probably knows that most of their viewers don't care for the player's perspective because most viewers don't pay money for the direct 'good conditioning' of the players. Most pay to watch entertaining games so that they don't have to think of all the other problems in their lives (this is the same reason why most people watch other sports, or reality TV)... very few watch out of a genuine interest in the well-being of the athlete or in the lives of the people featured in the show. And if they feel like they weren't entertained, then they won't pay again. I wish you luck in trying to change that, but I don't believe you'd be able to since it would involve instilling in human kind an attitude of immense selflessness... and seeing as the player you're trying to support himself acted selfishly, your attempt to change the world - in this regard - is somewhat futile (and ironic since the event that sparked it is an act of selfishness by the person you are trying to support), but it is nevertheless respectable. Good luck. 
|
On December 16 2011 09:45 Forikorder wrote:
i dont think this could possibly be considered harsh, if he deserves to be in code S hell get in code S this seasoncode s is ridic easy to get into now
if he cant get into code s then he didnt deserve to be in there and his game against NesTea is just proof hes not willing to put in the effort to be a true pro
That would be fair enough if Code S didn't already become a semi-invitational tournament (or on it's way to becoming one). It seems like foreigners and foreign teams can just come and go and get invites as they please - depending on how much they weigh in gold viewers/fans.
I hated the fact Nani got a million Code A invites in a row for consecutive high finishes at MLG, and I disagree with the Code S invite as well. But then it shouldn't be handed out to anyone else either.
On December 16 2011 09:48 Kahuna. wrote:
Most pay to watch entertaining games so that they don't have to think of all the other problems in their lives (this is the same reason why most people watch other sports, or reality TV)... very few watch out of a genuine interest in the well-being of the athlete or in the lives of the people featured in the show. )
Considering that Starcraft 2 doesn't have such a huge casual audience (and by casual I mean non players and people completely detached from the players and the scene, possibly the game itself) and most people know the game and the players in-depth, I'm actually not sure that's so true yet. Most people who pay for tournaments are avid followers of the scene, they pay for more than "watching entertaining games". Casual audience probably sticks to the free content they get occasionally.
Most people who follow the scene understand the mentality of the players and should realize that a Naniwa-Nestea game had zero chance of being a good game. In fact, the game that ended up seeing is arguably the MOST unique and entertaining game that match could possibly produce. 
I'm not saying you should be concerned with the player's well-being as if he were your brother - you don't need to look at this from any angle other than a Starcraft fan angle to realize that the Protoss player's decision made perfect sense given the circumstances and that ANYTHING else would be basically faking it while still playing horribly.
I don't think there are many people that enjoy seeing fake, bad games. I certainly don't think they are the majority. So unless you're either sadistic or you hate Naniwa from a fan perspective (which is fine), your anger for what he did is completely irrational. It's pointless to be upset because of "lack of professionalism" - you're not his boss, you're not his sponsor, and he doesn't represent your business. Let his managers and sponsors be angry for that, it's their role. From a fan perspective, you have zero rational reason to be.
|
It's not a meaningless game when tons of paying fans wanted to see it. Do you think there would have been no backlash if GOM had decided to not air the game? It was supposed to be an epic grudgematch for honor. EGAlex's blog has it right, it is GOM's job to serve the viewers and the player's jobs to perform (especially when this is a special invite event where all the matches are somewhat "showmatches").
|
There is no justifying for Nani's actions,but tournaments really need to work on the subject of meaningless matches such as but not only the Group stages in IPL3 and the Blizzard cup.I mean this(Blizzard Cup) tournament was suposed to be the one to choose the best amidst the invitees,but it turned out to have a horrible format (BO1 Group stage) with room for "meaningless" matches for the players.
|
On December 16 2011 09:48 Talin wrote:
I don't think there are many people that enjoy seeing fake, bad games. I certainly don't think they are the majority. So unless you're either sadistic or you hate Naniwa from a fan perspective (which is fine), your anger for what he did is completely irrational. It's pointless to be upset because of "lack of professionalism" - you're not his boss, you're not his sponsor, and he doesn't represent you. Let his managers and sponsors be angry for that. From a fan perspective, you have zero rational reason to be.
On the contrary, Naniwa gets paid because I subscribe to the events that feature him. While watching the GSL and hearing Moletrap and Khaldor talk about how there is going to be a great grudge match between Naniwa and Nestea coming up (a match that I along with many other subscribers paid to see and looked forward to), I got excited. Moments later my excitement diminished because Naniwa, at the time, did not understand what professionalism and selflessness (the characteristic that you are so fond of preaching) were. Thus, I was rationally upset with the outcome of that match and Naniwa's actions because the return on my investment was not as high as it could've been, had Naniwa played the game out. So save your lectures on logic and rationality, because I am fairly confident I understand what it means to be rational. And you should share your views on selflessness with Naniwa; I wonder what he would think about it, seeing as he isn't perceived to be a very selfless SC2 player and in fact, admitted to not being one.
|
On December 16 2011 10:06 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 09:48 Talin wrote:
I don't think there are many people that enjoy seeing fake, bad games. I certainly don't think they are the majority. So unless you're either sadistic or you hate Naniwa from a fan perspective (which is fine), your anger for what he did is completely irrational. It's pointless to be upset because of "lack of professionalism" - you're not his boss, you're not his sponsor, and he doesn't represent you. Let his managers and sponsors be angry for that. From a fan perspective, you have zero rational reason to be. On the contrary, Naniwa gets paid because I subscribe to the events that feature him. While watching the GSL and hearing Moletrap and Khaldor talk about how there is going to be a great grudge match between Naniwa and Nestea coming up (a match that I along with many other subscribers paid to see and looked forward to), I got excited. Moments later my excitement diminished because Naniwa, at the time, did not understand what professionalism and selflessness (the characteristic that you are so fond of preaching) were.
Even disregarding the fact that there was next to no chance that anyone would use their real strategies in a game like that, you would have to be aware of the fact that at the very least both players were physically and mentally exhausted and angry at their results in the tournament, and as long as you've ever played Starcraft, you KNOW that it's impossible to play when you're on that kind of a tilt even in competitive games, let alone games with zero competitive meaning. Just look at how Hero collapsed in the last 2 games the previous day, it was brutal.
Moletrap and Khaldor had to talk the way they talked because they too were being "professional" and did the acting and faking that Naniwa didn't. In no world, shape or form would that game at any point reach a level where it could be considered "epic". Expecting that is certainly not rational, and I honestly doubt there were many people that genuinely believed that it would.
Would you also be upset if Nani 6 Gated and rolled over and died with shit micro? Because if my criteria was that I wanted a quality game, I would. In fact, if a game has to be awful, it makes more sense to want it to be short as well.
On December 16 2011 10:06 Kahuna. wrote:
Thus, I was rationally upset with the outcome of that match and Naniwa's actions because the return on my investment was not as high as it could've been, had Naniwa played the game out. So save your lectures on logic and rationality, because I am fairly confident I understand what it means to be rational. And you should share your views on selflessness with Naniwa; I wonder what he would think about it, seeing as he isn't perceived to be a very selfless SC2 player and in fact, admitted to not being one.
Nani is a dick most of the time, I'm not arguing to support him and I've given him plenty of flak in the past, I'm arguing for a general principle and how players are (supposed to be) viewed and treated. At the end of the day, Starcraft is about watching players play, and everything else is of secondary importance. Moreover, while Nani might not be one, many other players are also long standing members of this community. There are many reasons why seeing them as a mix of clowns and modern-day gladiators is inappropriate in my eyes.
I feel a lot stronger on a personal level when people, for example, question why Tyler is still on a pro team and being flown to tournaments when he "isn't being professional with his training". It's really the same thing when you think of it.
|
On December 16 2011 10:28 Talin wrote:
Nani is a dick most of the time, I'm not arguing to support him and I've given him plenty of flak in the past, I'm arguing for a general principle and how players are (supposed to be) viewed and treated. At the end of the day, Starcraft is about watching players play, and everything else is of secondary importance. Moreover, while Nani might not be one, many other players are also long standing members of this community. There are many reasons why seeing them as a mix of clowns and modern-day gladiators is inappropriate in my eyes.
I feel a lot stronger on a personal level when people, for example, question why Tyler is still on a pro team and being flown to tournaments when he "isn't being professional with his training". It's really the same thing when you think of it.
What is irrational is your opinion that people see pros as clowns and gladiators... that hasn't been mentioned anywhere at all.
As for your comment regarding community involvement of players, there's two sides to every player... there's the 'community member' and then there is the 'player'. How you are judged as a player has nothing to do (or rather, should have nothing to do) with how you are judged as a member of the community. While you are playing you have to remember that you have two obligations to uphold as a player... you have the obligation to yourself to play well for the rewards that you seek and you also have the obligation to play well for the community/audience/viewers without whom you would not be a pro player (and instead just be a guy with a hobby). Your community involvement is not related to the two aforementioned obligations.
|
On December 16 2011 09:48 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 09:45 Forikorder wrote:
i dont think this could possibly be considered harsh, if he deserves to be in code S hell get in code S this seasoncode s is ridic easy to get into now
if he cant get into code s then he didnt deserve to be in there and his game against NesTea is just proof hes not willing to put in the effort to be a true pro That would be fair enough if Code S didn't already become a semi-invitational tournament (or on it's way to becoming one). It seems like foreigners and foreign teams can just come and go and get invites as they please - depending on how much they weigh in gold viewers/fans. I hated the fact Nani got a million Code A invites in a row for consecutive high finishes at MLG, and I disagree with the Code S invite as well. But then it shouldn't be handed out to anyone else either. Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 09:48 Kahuna. wrote:
Most pay to watch entertaining games so that they don't have to think of all the other problems in their lives (this is the same reason why most people watch other sports, or reality TV)... very few watch out of a genuine interest in the well-being of the athlete or in the lives of the people featured in the show. ) Considering that Starcraft 2 doesn't have such a huge casual audience (and by casual I mean non players and people completely detached from the players and the scene, possibly the game itself) and most people know the game and the players in-depth, I'm actually not sure that's so true yet. Most people who pay for tournaments are avid followers of the scene, they pay for more than "watching entertaining games". Casual audience probably sticks to the free content they get occasionally. Most people who follow the scene understand the mentality of the players and should realize that a Naniwa-Nestea game had zero chance of being a good game. In fact, the game that ended up seeing is arguably the MOST unique and entertaining game that match could possibly produce. I'm not saying you should be concerned with the player's well-being as if he were your brother - you don't need to look at this from any angle other than a Starcraft fan angle to realize that the Protoss player's decision made perfect sense given the circumstances and that ANYTHING else would be basically faking it while still playing horribly. I don't think there are many people that enjoy seeing fake, bad games. I certainly don't think they are the majority. So unless you're either sadistic or you hate Naniwa from a fan perspective (which is fine), your anger for what he did is completely irrational. It's pointless to be upset because of "lack of professionalism" - you're not his boss, you're not his sponsor, and he doesn't represent your business. Let his managers and sponsors be angry for that, it's their role. From a fan perspective, you have zero rational reason to be.
i think your wrong on both accounts
every tournament you hear tons of people say that they will or wont watch a tournament based on the level of players and alot of people said they wouldnt watch NASL due to lack of korean heavyweights (and koreans in general) so i think majority of the fanbase are solely interested in watching entertaining games
i dont get what your first point was directly aimed at you seem bitter that Naniwa was given a code s spot he didnt deserve yet say you understand he wasnt given a code s spot?
the new format works well imo instead of jsut looking at MLG wich wont be synched with Gom (might be possible to have 2 MLGs happen between one GSL season beggining and the next one) so jsut cherry picking from MLG wont work at all and this way players who cant attend MLGs as often have an equally fair chance
Nanis still in Code A and only has to win a few games to get in code s
and as for a rational reason to be angry, Naniwa VS NesTea was one of the most anticipated games of the night and im sure people tuned in to see them play as a nestea fan naniwa stole my chance to see this game which i was seriously looking forward to
|
On December 16 2011 10:37 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:28 Talin wrote:On December 16 2011 10:06 Kahuna. wrote:On December 16 2011 09:48 Talin wrote:
I don't think there are many people that enjoy seeing fake, bad games. I certainly don't think they are the majority. So unless you're either sadistic or you hate Naniwa from a fan perspective (which is fine), your anger for what he did is completely irrational. It's pointless to be upset because of "lack of professionalism" - you're not his boss, you're not his sponsor, and he doesn't represent you. Let his managers and sponsors be angry for that. From a fan perspective, you have zero rational reason to be. On the contrary, Naniwa gets paid because I subscribe to the events that feature him. While watching the GSL and hearing Moletrap and Khaldor talk about how there is going to be a great grudge match between Naniwa and Nestea coming up (a match that I along with many other subscribers paid to see and looked forward to), I got excited. Moments later my excitement diminished because Naniwa, at the time, did not understand what professionalism and selflessness (the characteristic that you are so fond of preaching) were. Even disregarding the fact that there was next to no chance that anyone would use their real strategies in a game like that, you would have to be aware of the fact that at the very least both players were physically and mentally exhausted and angry at their results in the tournament, and as long as you've ever played Starcraft, you KNOW that it's impossible to play when you're on that kind of a tilt even in competitive games, let alone games with zero competitive meaning. Moletrap and Khaldor had to talk the way they talked because they too were being "professional" and did the acting and faking that Naniwa didn't. In no world, shape or form would that game at any point reach a level where it could be considered "epic". Expecting that is certainly not rational, and I honestly doubt there were many people that genuinely believed that it would. Would you also be upset if Nani 6 Gated and rolled over and died with shit micro? Because if my criteria was that I wanted a quality game, I would. In fact, if a game has to be awful, it makes more sense to want it to be short as well. On December 16 2011 10:06 Kahuna. wrote:
Thus, I was rationally upset with the outcome of that match and Naniwa's actions because the return on my investment was not as high as it could've been, had Naniwa played the game out. So save your lectures on logic and rationality, because I am fairly confident I understand what it means to be rational. And you should share your views on selflessness with Naniwa; I wonder what he would think about it, seeing as he isn't perceived to be a very selfless SC2 player and in fact, admitted to not being one. Nani is a dick most of the time, I'm not arguing to support him and I've given him plenty of flak in the past, I'm arguing for a general principle and how players are (supposed to be) viewed and treated. At the end of the day, Starcraft is about watching players play, and everything else is of secondary importance. Moreover, while Nani might not be one, many other players are also long standing members of this community. There are many reasons why seeing them as a mix of clowns and modern-day gladiators is inappropriate in my eyes. I feel a lot stronger on a personal level when people, for example, question why Tyler is still on a pro team and being flown to tournaments when he "isn't being professional with his training". It's really the same thing when you think of it. What is irrational is your opinion that people see pros as clowns and gladiators... that hasn't been mentioned anywhere at all. As for your comment regarding community involvement of players, there's two sides to every player... there's the 'community member' and then there is the 'player'. How you are judged as a player has nothing to do (or rather, should have nothing to do) with how you are judged as a member of the community. While you are playing you have to remember that you have two obligations to uphold as a player... you have the obligation to yourself to play well for the rewards that you seek and you and the obligation to play well for the community/audience/viewers without whom you would not be a pro player (and instead just be a guy with a hobby). Your community involvement is not related to the two aforemention obligations.
You want them to fake out games when they're in no condition to play, and make an appearance just for show and you want them to act as if they're only playing the game for the audience and how the audience perceives them to be the most important thing in the world for them. How is that unlike a mix of a clown and a gladiator, apart from the fact that gladiators were slaves (although even that analogy might be applicable in some form)?
In order for "esports" to be comparable to sports, players need to be paid for performance and their only job should be to play the game to the best of their ability under fair and reasonable conditions - it doesn't matter where the money comes from, a player shouldn't have to think about that side. This is what managers of all sorts are being paid for - to think about the things that players don't want to (and shouldn't need to) think or care about.
In an ideal "professional" world, Naniwa would have his manager at his side, and the manager would have informed GOM that Naniwa's job is to compete in tournaments, and that since he was out of the tournament, he is currently in no condition to play a high level game just for show before Nani even got near the booth.
If we have players get paid based on exposure, popularity, and how they are perceived by the audience, that is not a sport. It's a reality show.
|
On December 16 2011 10:49 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 10:37 Kahuna. wrote:On December 16 2011 10:28 Talin wrote:On December 16 2011 10:06 Kahuna. wrote:On December 16 2011 09:48 Talin wrote:
I don't think there are many people that enjoy seeing fake, bad games. I certainly don't think they are the majority. So unless you're either sadistic or you hate Naniwa from a fan perspective (which is fine), your anger for what he did is completely irrational. It's pointless to be upset because of "lack of professionalism" - you're not his boss, you're not his sponsor, and he doesn't represent you. Let his managers and sponsors be angry for that. From a fan perspective, you have zero rational reason to be. On the contrary, Naniwa gets paid because I subscribe to the events that feature him. While watching the GSL and hearing Moletrap and Khaldor talk about how there is going to be a great grudge match between Naniwa and Nestea coming up (a match that I along with many other subscribers paid to see and looked forward to), I got excited. Moments later my excitement diminished because Naniwa, at the time, did not understand what professionalism and selflessness (the characteristic that you are so fond of preaching) were. Even disregarding the fact that there was next to no chance that anyone would use their real strategies in a game like that, you would have to be aware of the fact that at the very least both players were physically and mentally exhausted and angry at their results in the tournament, and as long as you've ever played Starcraft, you KNOW that it's impossible to play when you're on that kind of a tilt even in competitive games, let alone games with zero competitive meaning. Moletrap and Khaldor had to talk the way they talked because they too were being "professional" and did the acting and faking that Naniwa didn't. In no world, shape or form would that game at any point reach a level where it could be considered "epic". Expecting that is certainly not rational, and I honestly doubt there were many people that genuinely believed that it would. Would you also be upset if Nani 6 Gated and rolled over and died with shit micro? Because if my criteria was that I wanted a quality game, I would. In fact, if a game has to be awful, it makes more sense to want it to be short as well. On December 16 2011 10:06 Kahuna. wrote:
Thus, I was rationally upset with the outcome of that match and Naniwa's actions because the return on my investment was not as high as it could've been, had Naniwa played the game out. So save your lectures on logic and rationality, because I am fairly confident I understand what it means to be rational. And you should share your views on selflessness with Naniwa; I wonder what he would think about it, seeing as he isn't perceived to be a very selfless SC2 player and in fact, admitted to not being one. Nani is a dick most of the time, I'm not arguing to support him and I've given him plenty of flak in the past, I'm arguing for a general principle and how players are (supposed to be) viewed and treated. At the end of the day, Starcraft is about watching players play, and everything else is of secondary importance. Moreover, while Nani might not be one, many other players are also long standing members of this community. There are many reasons why seeing them as a mix of clowns and modern-day gladiators is inappropriate in my eyes. I feel a lot stronger on a personal level when people, for example, question why Tyler is still on a pro team and being flown to tournaments when he "isn't being professional with his training". It's really the same thing when you think of it. What is irrational is your opinion that people see pros as clowns and gladiators... that hasn't been mentioned anywhere at all. As for your comment regarding community involvement of players, there's two sides to every player... there's the 'community member' and then there is the 'player'. How you are judged as a player has nothing to do (or rather, should have nothing to do) with how you are judged as a member of the community. While you are playing you have to remember that you have two obligations to uphold as a player... you have the obligation to yourself to play well for the rewards that you seek and you and the obligation to play well for the community/audience/viewers without whom you would not be a pro player (and instead just be a guy with a hobby). Your community involvement is not related to the two aforemention obligations. You want them to fake out games when they're in no condition to play, and make an appearance just for show and you want them to act as if they're only playing the game for the audience and how the audience perceives them to be the most important thing in the world for them. How is that unlike a mix of a clown and a gladiator, apart from the fact that gladiators were slaves (although even that analogy might be applicable in some form)? In order for "esports" to be comparable to sports, players need to be paid for performance and their only job should be to play the game to the best of their ability under fair and reasonable conditions - it doesn't matter where the money comes from, a player shouldn't have to think about that side. This is what managers of all sorts are being paid for - to think about the things that players don't want to (and shouldn't need to) think or care about. In an ideal "professional" world, Naniwa would have his manager at his side, and the manager would have informed GOM that Naniwa's job is to compete in tournaments, and that since he was out of the tournament, he is currently in no condition to play a high level game just for show before Nani even got near the booth. If we have players get paid based on exposure, popularity, and how they are perceived by the audience, that is not a sport. It's a reality show.
if Naniwa wasnt in the condition to paly he should have forfeited from the blizzard cup
by accepting his spot in the blizzard cup he agreed to play the torunament and then threw his game against NesTea im pretty sure any manager wouldnt ahve been able to do anything about the backlash his palyer got for forfeiting a game
|
On December 16 2011 10:49 Talin wrote:
You want them to fake out games when they're in no condition to play, and make an appearance just for show and you want them to act as if they're only playing the game for the audience and how the audience perceives them to be the most important thing in the world for them. How is that unlike a mix of a clown and a gladiator, apart from the fact that gladiators were slaves (although even that analogy might be applicable in some form)?
In order for "esports" to be comparable to sports, players need to be paid for performance and their only job should be to play the game to the best of their ability under fair and reasonable conditions - it doesn't matter where the money comes from, a player shouldn't have to think about that side. This is what managers of all sorts are being paid for - to think about the things that players don't want to (and shouldn't need to) think or care about.
In an ideal "professional" world, Naniwa would have his manager at his side, and the manager would have informed GOM that Naniwa's job is to compete in tournaments, and that since he was out of the tournament, he is currently in no condition to play a high level game just for show before Nani even got near the booth.
If we have players get paid based on exposure, popularity, and how they are perceived by the audience, that is not a sport. It's a reality show.
Naniwa and Naniwa's manager (in this case his team) have made it quite explicit that his behaviour was wrong... they have also confirmed that it will not happen again. If you fail to meet your obligation as a progamer to play well for yourself that doesn't release you from your obligation to perform well for your audience (without whom you're a nobody). Naniwa failed his former obligation by going 0-3 in his first three games. He is still required to play well in the last game to meet the latter obligation he has toward the audience that supports him and allows him to make a living through SC2. Even he has released a statement acknowledging that (whether he believes it or not is irrelevant, so long as he understands it and doesn't let it happen again).
And as I stated earlier, if a player is extremely unhappy with the tournament structure then he can do one of three things without coming off as an unprofessional douchebag:
(1) Not participate in the tournament and propose a change to its structure for next time; if GOM adopts such a change then Naniwa can choose to now compete in the tournament structure since itmeets his 'standards'
(2) He can choose to participate anyway, but in doing so he should understand that even though he disagrees with the structure he should not disrespect/dishonour the tournament if possible inconsequential games have to be played by him
(3) He can win all his games so that he never has to play an inconsequential game (this is an unreasonable request, but I included it in the list because I believe that it is just as unreasonable to blame GOM for its tournament structure... as I said in point (1)... if you don't like the structure, wait until it changes, if it ever does)
EDIT:
There's actually even a fourth option that would be reasonable and professional and this is the option that Naniwa should have exercised after going 0-3 at the tournament, seeing as the previous three options are so unlike him due to his personality and attitude:
(4) Prior to the match and before everything is ready for broadcast, kindly let the tournament organizers know that you are not mentally/physically fit to play for whatever reason (lack of emotional control, fatigue, injury, you will end up probe rushing if you do play, etc.)
|
This is one of the most thoughtful responses I have read. Unfortunately, it's too late to change anything 
|
On December 16 2011 11:15 ReketSomething wrote:This is one of the most thoughtful responses I have read. Unfortunately, it's too late to change anything
what are you talking about. The more people aware of this the better, it can only help the future
|
On December 16 2011 11:44 Divinek wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 11:15 ReketSomething wrote:This is one of the most thoughtful responses I have read. Unfortunately, it's too late to change anything what are you talking about. The more people aware of this the better, it can only help the future
Yeh, I'm pretty sure that this kind of debate will lead GOM to think about revising its structure of future tournaments. They're not going to completely ignore the opinions of the community.
|
Stop blaming Gom without thinking about their position.
There are literally no tournament formats that totally exclude useless games. Only Elimination style tournaments achieve this and then it has it's own weakness, where you don't see the breadth of match ups that GOM/Viewers want.
|
I still can't believe they scheduled that game. I was looking forward to it on some level due to the BM rivalry built up. But the moment these guys were both out of the running i stopped caring because the game's importance dropped from 9/10 to zero in my mind. I assumed they weren't going to play it. Both guys should have been eliminated at that point. But no, GOM, in their infinite wisdom decided to force the game to be played.
I've been paying for GSL non stop since season 2 but i didn't pay for this tournament. The format was a huge part of this, it just felt like unimportant show match rubbish. Games for the sake of games, and not for the sake of true ESPORTS competition. The NFL Pro Bowl isn't much better.
I just can't imagine what 'fan' would want to see this game played at that time. Naniwa did me a huge favour by agreeing with me. I can't wait to see them battle under true competitive circumstances and have it actually matter. That match will be HUGE. In PPV terms, MANY BUYS. Because at the end of the day i pay my money to see these players competing at the top of their game to become champion of earth. That is all i care about. Winners. Not losers. This was a battle of losers. No thanks, GOM.
|
8748 Posts
On December 16 2011 12:09 StUfF wrote:
Stop blaming Gom without thinking about their position.
There are literally no tournament formats that totally exclude useless games. Only Elimination style tournaments achieve this and then it has it's own weakness, where you don't see the breadth of match ups that GOM/Viewers want.
You don't mean to say "literally no tournament formats" when you follow it up like that. You know that there are popular tournament formats that don't have useless games but you think that they introduce even worse cons.
MLG's pool play, keeping in mind the extended series rule, is an example of a non-elimination format that makes every game count. Every placement in pool play is significant. And even when a pool play match won't effect a player's placement in the pool, there is a chance that those two players will meet in the championship bracket and play an extended series.
|
On December 16 2011 13:33 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 12:09 StUfF wrote:
Stop blaming Gom without thinking about their position.
There are literally no tournament formats that totally exclude useless games. Only Elimination style tournaments achieve this and then it has it's own weakness, where you don't see the breadth of match ups that GOM/Viewers want.
You don't mean to say "literally no tournament formats" when you follow it up like that. You know that there are popular tournament formats that don't have useless games but you think that they introduce even worse cons. MLG's pool play, keeping in mind the extended series rule, is an example of a non-elimination format that makes every game count. Every placement in pool play is significant. And even when a pool play match won't effect a player's placement in the pool, there is a chance that those two players will meet in the championship bracket and play an extended series.
OH SNAP! Liquid Tyler at it again.
I just wanted to quote Tyler :D
Though he brings up a very valid point.
|
As a matter of fact, IPL3 even added prize money to pool play that determined bracket seeds just in case there were players that didn't care about the seeds. So players had double incentive to play the games (compared to GOM's no incentives whatsoever).
As it turned out, there were players that cared neither about the prize money, nor the seeds, so they still didn't play.
Nobody was executed for this.
|
But naniwa did play, and he made a mockery of GOM and the tournament on broadcast. That's the point, GOM never forced either of the players to actually play, and naniwa never made an effort to forfeit the game before it started. Instead he decided to disrespect everyone with clownish actions. It would have been no different if he called them a joke right there on TV.
There is a clear fundamental difference between not showing up to play and showing up and kicking the ball into your own goal.
|
On December 16 2011 14:25 Itsmedudeman wrote:
But naniwa did play, and he made a mockery of GOM and the tournament on broadcast. That's the point, GOM never forced either of the players to actually play, and naniwa never made an effort to forfeit the game before it started. Instead he decided to disrespect everyone with clownish actions.
Do we actually know this though? As in, was it posted somewhere?
If it is true that he never attempted to forfeit before the game, then I withdraw my defense of his actions.
|
United States7481 Posts
On December 16 2011 14:36 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 14:25 Itsmedudeman wrote:
But naniwa did play, and he made a mockery of GOM and the tournament on broadcast. That's the point, GOM never forced either of the players to actually play, and naniwa never made an effort to forfeit the game before it started. Instead he decided to disrespect everyone with clownish actions. Do we actually know this though? As in, was it posted somewhere? If it is true that he never attempted to forfeit before the game, then I withdraw my defense of his actions.
he said on live on 3 that he didn't ask if he could forfeit
|
8748 Posts
On December 16 2011 14:25 Itsmedudeman wrote:
But naniwa did play, and he made a mockery of GOM and the tournament on broadcast. That's the point, GOM never forced either of the players to actually play, and naniwa never made an effort to forfeit the game before it started. Instead he decided to disrespect everyone with clownish actions. It would have been no different if he called them a joke right there on TV.
There is a clear fundamental difference between not showing up to play and showing up and kicking the ball into your own goal.
Word is that he did ask to forfeit and not play the match. I can't find any reliable testimony for or against it. It's just what I've heard. So I can't say for sure that he did ask for a forfeit and you can't say for sure that he didn't.
On December 16 2011 14:38 Antoine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 14:36 Talin wrote:On December 16 2011 14:25 Itsmedudeman wrote:
But naniwa did play, and he made a mockery of GOM and the tournament on broadcast. That's the point, GOM never forced either of the players to actually play, and naniwa never made an effort to forfeit the game before it started. Instead he decided to disrespect everyone with clownish actions. Do we actually know this though? As in, was it posted somewhere? If it is true that he never attempted to forfeit before the game, then I withdraw my defense of his actions. he said on live on 3 that he didn't ask if he could forfeit
Given this public statement, I'm not gonna bother defending the point anymore. He really has no choice but to say that publicly, since saying the opposite makes gomtv look worse. It's pretty clear that Naniwa and Quantic want to defuse the situation and minimize the harm that comes to gomtv so it'd be a pretty big blunder to report something that shifts responsibility toward gomtv.
So I'll assume he didn't ask for a forfeit. All that means is that he didn't throw the issue into gomtv's face. There was nothing stopping gomtv from being aware of the situation and taking some care before the match to make sure everything goes well. There's no reason to think that gomtv is better off being passive. I'm sure anyone with some related experience will agree that being proactive and observing problems forming and preventing them is the best way to operate.
So just to be clear, since it actually is gomtv's responsibility, then the issue should be about whether gomtv approached naniwa and offered him to forfeit the match if he wanted to, and made it clear that if he does play, then he ought to try hard enough to put on a good show and do the game justice.
|
Well, that's actually very disappointing from Naniwa then. -_-
Edit: ah screw it, I'm done with this. xD
|
Good writeup. I'm tired and can't offer a coherent retort on the single line "It's not like people want to watch meaningless games, either." but suffice to say that many people would watch a tournament game of Nestea whether it mattered for his advancement or not. The same can be said about Naniwa. Them versing each other..
There are so many great starcraft players but two of the biggest tournament winners against each other? That's a match that many would watch for the sake of the match and not it's importance for their rankings. But that's not what happened and as you said, as we go into 2012 I hope everyone remembers what was taught in December 2011.
Thanks for the writeup. It's one of the few out of the mass of opinions I've stomached a read through.
|
8748 Posts
On December 16 2011 14:48 Probe1 wrote:
Good writeup. I'm tired and can't offer a coherent retort on the single line "It's not like people want to watch meaningless games, either." but suffice to say that many people would watch a tournament game of Nestea whether it mattered for his advancement or not. The same can be said about Naniwa. Them versing each other..
To the extent that a game is meaningful, players will try to win it. To the extent that the players are trying to win, people want to watch it.
It's not perfectly true but it's definitely more true than it is false.
|
On December 16 2011 14:58 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
To the extent that a game is meaningful, players will try to win it. To the extent that the players are trying to win, people want to watch it.
It's not perfectly true but it's definitely more true than it is false.
But 'meaningful' is relative. Different players will approach the meaning of a game differently. If you look at the reaction of the various Korean pros who codemned Naniwa for his decision, they mention that they would've loved to have been on that stage to battle with NesTea, meaningful game or not. A player should try to play any game that he is scheduled to play in any scenario if the game is being featured to an audience as large as the one for the Blizzard Cup. If a player decides not to, then he should respectfully ask for a forfeit, but not unprofessionally conduct himself in the way Naniwa did. Once you enter the booth and the broadcast is ready to go, you should play a solid game... sure you don't need to reveal any strategies if you don't want to... but would it kill a foreign player to play a solid game in celebration of the fact that he was invited to Korea to participate in a pretigious tournament with some of the world's biggest heavy weights.
By this point I am just trying to exemplify that how 'meaningful' a game is will depend on the player. I am confident that many other players would've approached the game from the perspective I am presenting here... "yes I lost 0-3 and yes I'm disappointed, but it's been great that I've been invited to such a great tournament with some of the world's best and it is an honour to be playing my last game against NesTea, so I will play as well as I can without revealing any special strategy I had prepared out of respect for my fans and the huge number of people at home watching." I don't think this way of thinking is harmful to anyone and in fact, I think this way of thinking from players is actually better - rather than worse - for E-Sports.
|
I have to agree that GOM screwed up with this tournament format. Ultimately a tournament organizer serves their sponsors, which they do by attracting as many viewers as possible. This is accomplished by showcasing the best possible games. There's a very simple formula for this: you get the best possible players and reward them for winning. And while it's true that many other tournaments have bad structures, GOM has set themselves apart in a couple of ways.
#1: Having NaNiwa play against Nestea actually represents a step BACKWARDS in terms of tournament structure. Before this, the GSL has always sought to streamline their format to produce games where the stakes are clear and significant. Up until now, the best tournament formats in SC2 in my opinion have been the TSL and the GSL. Suddenly GOM decides to go completely in the opposite direction. Now, in truth, even the Blizzard cup was better than many other tournaments. But as bad as I feel supporting the bad decisions of others, I feel even worse supporting a bad decision that follows good ones. Like I'm not just encouraging something bad, but I'm actively inviting them to do even worse.
#2: No other major SC2 tournament that I know of has punished a player for how they chose to play(or not play) a single game. This is probably because at some level they are aware that they share some responsibility for such anomalies. GOM continues to take no responsibility for this incident. I'm not asking that they absolve NaNiwa of any wrongdoing. I can accept that they don't feel it's appropriate to reward him with a code S seed directly following a match that he plainly threw. It sure would be nice to see a genuine apology for their own part in this, though.
I'd really like to watch GSL in the new year. I'm excited about their format changes for next season. I'm really excited to see Idra and Sen in code S. I'd enjoy it a whole lot more though, if I didn't have to wonder whether I'm contributing to the growth of e-sports, or tearing it down.
|
Very good example from the world of regular sports, fits nicely.
On December 16 2011 05:35 Antoine wrote:
Starcraft event organizers need to take similar steps.
I feel compelled to point out that one has taken steps. This is why MLG has the extended series rule and why I have argued time and again for MLG to keep the extended series rule (excepting in tournament finals, which should always be bo7)
Extended series means that no pool play game is ever pointless. Even if a player has secured first place in the pool, there is still a chance that they may meet an opponent again in the championship bracket, and down 0-2 is not the way you want to start a series. It makes the game more fair and makes relevant many pool matches that would otherwise not be so.
So MLG had done their part in this regard. Yet people have complained and whined about the extended series from day 1 of SC2 in MLG. They say it's not fair, or it makes it less exciting, etc. etc. For all the complaints, honestly I wouldn't be surprised to see extended series gone next season, and what a shame that would be. MLG has really pioneered a great format here. While it the rule certainly needs tweaking when it comes to the tournament final, the over all effect has been great. Every game should count for something.
On December 16 2011 13:33 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
MLG's pool play, keeping in mind the extended series rule, is an example of a non-elimination format that makes every game count. Every placement in pool play is significant. And even when a pool play match won't effect a player's placement in the pool, there is a chance that those two players will meet in the championship bracket and play an extended series.
Yes!
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
agreed,
all the ppl saying naniwa 'owes it to everyone to try his best' r retarded
not that i would have done what naniwa did, cuz its a bitch move, but still
it's the tournament's fault for making meaningless matches possible
|
I'm also a big proponent of extended series, but what bugs me about MLG is the championship bracket. Having the best players play the least games seems pretty bad for the viewers.
|
On December 16 2011 16:31 Rekrul wrote:
all the ppl saying naniwa 'owes it to everyone to try his best' r retarded
Seeing as he himself apologized for his actions (forcefully or otherwise) shows that these people aren't retarded and their opinions matter. Moreover without the "everyone" who pay to watch their games, progamers wouldn't be progamers so to an extent, yes he is obligated to play his game for the fans. Even you refer to what he did as a "bitch move"... why is it a "bitch move"? It's a "bitch move" because it shows a lack of respect for GOM, the thousands of people who paid to watch the game at the time, and E-Sports in general.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
On December 16 2011 16:50 Kahuna. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 16:31 Rekrul wrote:
all the ppl saying naniwa 'owes it to everyone to try his best' r retarded
Seeing as he himself apologized for his actions (forcefully or otherwise) shows that these people aren't retarded and their opinions matter. Moreover without the "everyone" who pay to watch their games, progamers wouldn't be progamers so to an extent, yes he is obligated to play his game for the fans. Even you refer to what he did as a "bitch move"... why is it a "bitch move"? It's a "bitch move" because it shows a lack of respect for GOM, the thousands of people who paid to watch the game at the time, and E-Sports in general.
seems to me like the entire industry was entertained by it
ty naniwa
|
On December 16 2011 17:07 Rekrul wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 16:50 Kahuna. wrote:On December 16 2011 16:31 Rekrul wrote:
all the ppl saying naniwa 'owes it to everyone to try his best' r retarded
Seeing as he himself apologized for his actions (forcefully or otherwise) shows that these people aren't retarded and their opinions matter. Moreover without the "everyone" who pay to watch their games, progamers wouldn't be progamers so to an extent, yes he is obligated to play his game for the fans. Even you refer to what he did as a "bitch move"... why is it a "bitch move"? It's a "bitch move" because it shows a lack of respect for GOM, the thousands of people who paid to watch the game at the time, and E-Sports in general. seems to me like the entire industry was entertained by it ty naniwa
If by "entertained" you mean it gave everyone something to talk about, then yes, you're right. In that case, TY Naniwa indeed.
|
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.
IEM, DH, Assembly and IPL also use these group plays, that's very true.
What's not true though, is that they are yet to punish a player for not playing a pointless game. Sugarcoat it as much as you want, it still doesn't make what you said relevant.
And you can't possibly compare this with soccer do you?
Even these pointless games in soccer (with lower attendance then meaningful ones) draw income for your team in ticket sales etc.
Comparing these would be appropriate if NaNi got a share money/viewer.
|
On December 16 2011 13:33 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 12:09 StUfF wrote:
Stop blaming Gom without thinking about their position.
There are literally no tournament formats that totally exclude useless games. Only Elimination style tournaments achieve this and then it has it's own weakness, where you don't see the breadth of match ups that GOM/Viewers want.
You don't mean to say "literally no tournament formats" when you follow it up like that. You know that there are popular tournament formats that don't have useless games but you think that they introduce even worse cons. MLG's pool play, keeping in mind the extended series rule, is an example of a non-elimination format that makes every game count. Every placement in pool play is significant. And even when a pool play match won't effect a player's placement in the pool, there is a chance that those two players will meet in the championship bracket and play an extended series.
The MLG's pool play makes MLG Open Bracket meaningless 95% of time (Naniwa being in that other 5%)
PS. When was the last time you (or any other pro) showed up for MLG consolidation matches?
You took part of tournament format that supposedly makes every game count but forgot about the rest of the said tournament format
On December 16 2011 16:31 Rekrul wrote:
agreed,
all the ppl saying naniwa 'owes it to everyone to try his best' r retarded
not that i would have done what naniwa did, cuz its a bitch move, but still
it's the tournament's fault for making meaningless matches possible
I have to partially agree with you. But still those matches wouldn't be possible without players playing so bad that they would fail to get even one win.
|
Yay! an opinion that isn't full of retard, i can get behind this! also agree with rekrul that naniwa did a bitch move to avoid playing it out with nestea.
|
On December 16 2011 22:27 nttea wrote:
Yay! an opinion that isn't full of retard, i can get behind this! also agree with rekrul that naniwa did a bitch move to avoid playing it out with nestea.
Yup. I can fully appreciate what the OP has written. I don't know why people make such a big deal out of this and I've seen Saviors name written at least 5 times now. Rekrul is right. What naniwa did was a shitty move but I can't blame him and I even stayed up to watch it. If this event did seriously hurt you in some way there are more pressing issues for those of you to worry about.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
i almost have to thank naniwa, sc2 is such a bad game that we need more drama like this to keep the scene interesting
^_^
|
Rekrul m-m-m-m-monster kill.
Hahaha, leave it to Rek...
|
On December 16 2011 23:39 Rekrul wrote:
i almost have to thank naniwa, sc2 is such a bad game that we need more drama like this to keep the scene interesting
^_^
And if all else fails, we can count on you to fan any dying flames lol
|
On December 16 2011 13:33 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2011 12:09 StUfF wrote:
Stop blaming Gom without thinking about their position.
There are literally no tournament formats that totally exclude useless games. Only Elimination style tournaments achieve this and then it has it's own weakness, where you don't see the breadth of match ups that GOM/Viewers want.
You don't mean to say "literally no tournament formats" when you follow it up like that. You know that there are popular tournament formats that don't have useless games but you think that they introduce even worse cons. MLG's pool play, keeping in mind the extended series rule, is an example of a non-elimination format that makes every game count. Every placement in pool play is significant. And even when a pool play match won't effect a player's placement in the pool, there is a chance that those two players will meet in the championship bracket and play an extended series.
MLG group championship bracket games also has less meaning compared to regular games as well, you're just fighting for a seeding and not for elimination. Does this cause the pro-gamers to value these games less? Save their strategies for later opponents? Viewers care less?
I can't think of a single format other than elimination style that would remove all useless games, these games exist in all professional sports and games, should elimination style be the only one played?
I'm not sure what it is like from a pro-gamer perspective, but would you prefer elimination format over group - from a viewer/broadcast perspective you can see why they prefer group for some of the earlier rounds. More varied match ups (more viewership draw X vs X), more chance the best 3 our of 6 get through, a more controlled amount of games are played.
|
On December 19 2011 07:05 StUfF wrote:
MLG group championship bracket games also has less meaning compared to regular games as well, you're just fighting for a seeding and not for elimination. Does this cause the pro-gamers to value these games less? Save their strategies for later opponents? Viewers care less?
Seeding and extended series in MLG pool play or "group championship bracket" as you call it make every game incredibly important. The seeding is hugely important and it makes every game very very significant. Players at MLG want to win every game and no games are pointless with the possible exception of 7-8 place matches etc, however they still count for MLG points, which are again, very important for the next MLG.
I think GOM's main mistake was the punishing of Naniwa with the bait and switch Code S Seed instead of just apologising to the fans for letting something happen and secretly rewarding Naniwa for the huge amount of hype he just created.
On December 16 2011 23:39 Rekrul wrote:
i almost have to thank naniwa, sc2 is such a bad game that we need more drama like this to keep the scene interesting
^_^
<3
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
