My Perspective on ＤｏｔＡ　２ - Page 20

On December 18 2014 05:46 zzdd wrote:

Valve doesn't want to be involved in which tournaments become popular or are considered important. They would rather let the community decide and it seems like the community is deciding only TI matters.

On December 18 2014 06:22 Sn0_Man wrote:
Well there are TI qualifiers that are "win and in"

On December 18 2014 05:17 Rybka wrote:


The International itself isn't the problem, it's the invite process.

Valve should just do what the FGC does, and simply call out the tournaments that will be qualifiers. Win the tourney and you're in. It works for EVO, it would work for DotA2.

On December 18 2014 07:52 FHDH wrote:

The problem with that approach, and what a lot of people, I think, fail to appreciate about the Dota2 scene when suggesting this kind of solution, is that there is no parallel to something like EVO in Dota2. Or rather, TI IS the EVO of Dota2.

If The International had not been the genesis of major Dota2 tournaments, and had instead come along after the tournament scene had grown organically (Valve did the right thing here, I'm just speaking hypothetically), they could choose for qualifying "majors" events which had organically rose to prominence, with organizations which had shown a consistency of quality Valve would feel comfortable associating their main event with.

I agree that the invite system is fucked up. I also agree that it should actually be eliminated as-is even though I think it has made sense up to a point (inviting teams by human examination of a chaotic scene).

The basic parameters of a good International lineup:

1) No region underrepresented - any region with a developed Dota2 scene should be guaranteed some representation proportional to the total number of slots

2) No region overrepresented - the guaranteed slots per region should not exceed the point that each region will contribute reasonably competitive teams in its guaranteed slots.

3) As a corollary to 1 & 2, highly-competitive teams from stacked regions should not be unable to attend because too many slots were given to less-competitive regions. However, depending on regional imbalance, this may be unavoidable past a certain point. It should be accepted that on a regular basis, regional guarantees will put in at least one team that is lower quality than a team from another region that couldn't get in.

Why is this important?

International interest in TI is good not only for the event but the growth of the game and sport. Even if the same two regions keep winning the event for the foreseeable future, any region with a developed interest in the sport should get to see their top team(s) head to the main event every year, even if they get manhandled.

How does Valve approach minimum regional seed assignment?

There are two ways: have a consistent format across regions and determine regions based on their capability of fielding that number of guaranteed teams (eg, 2 slots per region).

Advantages: Simple, likely slower to change, lends itself to consistent primary qualifiers worldwide.

Disadvantages: Less adaptable. Regions need to be large enough to justify taking guaranteed slots from dominant regions.

The other is to set the number of slots based on a region's expectations and set regions based on how many regions Valve would like to see at least one representative from (such as adding a region for CIS, or South America, or maybe Africa in some glorious future or something). This evaluation should be made reasonably early in the cycle, with the opportunity to evaluate both TI performance per region and the regional events in the months that follow.

Advantages: Adaptable. Reasonable to declare a new Dota region as soon as you think it can field at least one team worth giving a slot to on an annual basis. It is less negative to reduce slots for a region than to eliminate it entirely. Also creates the opportunity to directly pump a sub-region's scene through the qualifier process. In addition, a scene which is both highly competitive and geographically centralized resists subdividing for consistently-allotted slots.

Disadvantages: Declaring a new region - such as subdividing Americas into NA and SA or SEA into Korea and SEA, or Europe and CIS (not something that should be done now, but could be possible in the future) should be seen as a commitment to continue giving that region at least one slot and a qualifying event. If the region tanks competitively, Valve is put in a bad position. This is less of a problem for larger regions likely to produce at least one competitive team.

How should those guaranteed slots be assigned?

Whichever approach you want to take - larger regions with consistent guaranteed slots, or smaller regions with region-specific guarantees - the answer is pretty clearly...wait for it...

HOST MAJOR REGIONAL LANS

Let the results of each LAN determine who gets a guaranteed slot. Top one? Top two? Top four? Whatever is deemed appropriate. The top X teams from each region now have a slot.

Important: Have a prize pool for this LAN. No one who qualifies for TI should just not get paid. Not ever again.

You now have guaranteed regional representation. Now you need to go after the other end: making sure good teams from highly competitive regions have a chance to fight over the remaining slots. Now, you have an international play-in tournament. Take X teams from below the qualifying threshold in each region, put them in a LAN, and let them duke it out for the remaining spots. X should be directly proportional to the region's guaranteed spots. If you have two slots per region, then maybe two play-in slots. Or four. Whatever works. If you have four for China and one for SA, then maybe China gets four play-in slots and SA one. Etc. The logic that sets guaranteed slots applies to play-in slots as well.

"Wow. this sounds an awful lot like the current system."

Well it does, but there are substantive differences.

First, the qualifiers have really lacked the excitement of a LAN so far. As much as people act like LANs have become NBD the viewership for most has told a different story. Apparently China had a LAN for their qualifiers and I didn't even know about it. These things should be regional events, not just something that happens mostly online that has varied levels of interest by region. An event center of appropriate size should be rented out and filled up in every region.

Secondly, NO MORE SHADOW INVITES. The way to get into TI will be 100% clear for everyone. Even if Valve wants to do some kind of invites they can simply invite teams to the regional tournaments. Likely a play-in series for these tournaments will be conducted online, like with most tournaments, but there is no reason a team which is clearly top one or two in its region should have to participate in that. If there are such teams, you invite them to the LAN, and then they have to show they are the best in the region to guarantee their slot. And if they lose? Then they have a second shot with the international play-in pool. If they can't make it from either of those, did they deserve a direct invite?

Third, this gives Valve the opportunity to do something it has not been able to do before. While casters have "competed" for spots at TI, tournament organizers have only been overshadowed by TI. The easiest way for Valve to have these regional LANs is to have regional tournament organizers do the administration (in partnership with Valve, including some basic standardization of rules).

Suddenly, tournament organizers have a reason to compete for a reputation as the best in their region. This maintains Valve's philosophy of a lassaiz-faire tournament scene while creating a major incentive for TOs to not only make money but be seen as an organization Valve would want to be associated with in hosting a regional tournament. This also raises the prestige of a particular organization without taking a given tournament that is not organic to TI and rising it above the rest. It also gives Valve, and the personnel who will be administrating the main event, the opportunity to be involved in multiple practice-runs more similar to TI before the event itself, and to learn from those TOs anything which may be useful (while, obviously, being there to provide direct support to the tournament).

In addition, this approach to qualifiers amends a great injustice of previous TIs: players not getting paid. I heard people say "oh well if you didn't at least get X place at TI why should you get any prize money." Um, hello? How do you fucking think they got there? Well in some cases they were invited. OK. They were invited for a reason, for one thing, and for another that's a lot of work to get zero dollars for. But many others got there by playing their asses off in a system that didn't pay them. That's bullshit. If you win or place at a LAN to just get IN to TI, no one is going to argue you shouldn't get paid. Or they might, but they definitely wouldn't argue against having a prize pool at the qualifying LAN, because people have inconsistent internal logic.

I care a lot about this point, and that is why I keep bringing it up.

"OK, that was a shitton of text, what's the fucking point? What does that have to do with EE Spirit Bomb Senpai's post?"

Well, at the heart of EE's complaint about exhaustion through too many tournaments - and this point is debatable even as things stand but debatable, not explicitly wrong - is the stress of not knowing how to get a direct invite to TI. So get rid of direct invites. Make players play in. But also make sure they have a shot of getting in that is more relative to their skill and less relative to their region. The only way you can do this without turning Dota2 into a league - which comes with its own stresses - is to have a major tournament structure.

Now, the part of the year not dominated by TI is a time teams can choose their tournaments based on their need to compete, need to get exposure for sponsors, and desire to pursue pots.

Now, tournament organizers will be more motivated to make players happy so Valve will select them for that year's regional qualifiers (or whatever length of contract Valve wants to go with). ESL Presents The European? Etc.

All of this without killing the current tournament scene. Teams will be selective about the tournaments they attend, but few tournaments past a certain level of quality/prize-pool will fail to get participation by top-tier teams. But no tournament will be considered "mandatory" by anyone. None. So TOs will have multiple reasons to try and put on a good event.


TL;DR

1) Get rid of direct invites to TI

2) Partner with TOs who have proven themselves to host major regional LANs as the foundation of TI slots, ensuring each Dota2 region is represented - direct invites to qualifying LANs is fine as they may have a pre-qualifier. Have a prize pool for these LANs. Make them a big regional deal!

3) Precipitate further play-in from the LAN - similar to current regional system but larger - in a secondary international LAN tournament for the remaining slots. This could be in Seattle right before the tournament like it was, or hosted elsewhere, say a month before the event so everyone has time for visas. Maybe. Hopefully. Have a prize pool for this LAN.

4) Everything is better for everyone, not just the top-tier teams. Top-tier teams don't have to sweat shadow invites, only qualifier tournament performance. Everyone can choose LANs based on the parameters that are important to them as a team. TOs now have multiple reasons to do their best to put on a good show and treat players well. Everyone is getting paid. The smaller tournament scene is allowed to flourish, giving smaller teams an opportunity to compete and win money. Everything is better.

On December 18 2014 08:13 bagels21 wrote:


Long but good post. This is probably the solution many of us want, it's just too similar to LCS and not "free-market" enough for some of the Valve/current approach supporters.

It's kinda funny, but your solution is much more similar to something EE and his supporters would want than the other way around.

On December 18 2014 08:19 FHDH wrote:

Maybe. But I think it all could be done over one quarter of the year, with at least one major gap a major summer LAN could comfortably fit inside. That leaves nine months a year for everyone else to rock out. I don't visualize this process requiring more than 4-6 weeks more from beginning-to-end and would only add 1-2 weeks more commitment for top teams (depending on how they do overall).

I think most players would like this system over the current, EE included.

On December 18 2014 18:04 govie wrote:
If casters and teams be more picky about what they cast/play, problems are solved.

On December 18 2014 19:21 -Celestial- wrote:


Pretty sure neither can afford to.


For the casters...firstly I doubt its paying millions per casting gig (if it even pays at all) so those who are trying to make a living off it need the work. Secondly I would imagine there's considerable pressure to pick up jobs offered in order to stay "relevant" as someone in the scene and get exposure.



For the players, its been explained numerous times around here that teams seem to live in perpetual uncertainty or even fear over whether they will get invited to The International or not which is a huge deal. So the top teams feel pressured into HAVING to enter everything just to keep their name up there for Valve.

As a somewhat-relevant analogy given the author of this blog: Valve is senpai and the teams desperately want senpai to notice them.

On December 18 2014 19:23 govie wrote:


If they cant afford too then valve giving ti-points per tournament isnt helping either.

On December 19 2014 02:18 -Celestial- wrote:
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at.

On December 19 2014 09:07 utcraigo14 wrote:
Envy splashed intermittent well formed thoughts into a sea of childish poor writing and ridiculous complaining. Most offensive was his slamming of BTS - he is obviously still bitter about finishing second yet again, and seems to have a personal vendetta against some of the casters that were there. He complained about the blandness of an over-saturated Dota 2 tournament schedule, yet managed to slam one of the tournaments that is most unique, enjoyable and exciting for the fans to watch. EE is a great pro, a great player and an intelligent strategist, but he is a terrible writer, and like most of us involved in Dota 2, still has a lot of growing up to do.

On December 19 2014 10:49 EnumaAvalon wrote:

While I disagree with EE on a lot of his points. I'd have to say that his The Summit 2 rant was on point. Great for the fans does not equal great tournament. That's just one aspect

I know the EG boys are pretty mad.