My Perspective on ＤｏｔＡ　２ - Page 21

On December 19 2014 11:27 FHDH wrote:

Nah it was actually pretty weak shit. Complaining about the both the quantity and quality of the computers...this subject is so beat to death I have no desire to relitigate it. I agree they should take steps to improve this aspect (I have specific solutions in mind, call me LD~) but there are obviously reasons they went for the sponsorship deal and resources are not infinite. They also all knew what they were going to - why did he think there was going to be a bank of computers for them to practice on at a fucking house? This is the SECOND SUMMIT, THERE IS NO SURPRISE THAT IT'S JUST A HOUSE.

He brought up the thing about the coin flip but that never went anywhere, just him talking about how he asked someone multiple times about something. OK dude.

Then saying the schedules are not made with delays in mind. There is a maximum amount of delay you can build into a schedule and thanks to the PC sponsors failing hard they exceeded the reasonable amount. Did anyone ask about favorable scheduling changes or opting out of superfluous events, or are we just marking the times things happened and complaining about it?


Least convincing supporting evidence in the entire Dota2 world. The Summit is explicitly a tournament that is supposed to have good competition without all the usual trappings of a major LAN. Complaining about the shit he complained about is like complaining that DC's tournament has heroes you don't practice because they aren't in CM. It's just childish whiny bullshit and it dilutes any legitimate points he has (of which there are many!).

Summit2:

1) Flew, fed, and accommodated everyone
2) Gave everyone a relaxing environment to hang out in
3) Had a 300k prize pool
4) Paid EVERY QUALIFYING COMPETITOR
5) Was a great show for the fans

The issue with PC quality was the only legitimate complaint you can make and it is understandable as long as they do not make the same mistake twice (trusting a crappy sponsor). If you as a competitor cannot deal with other aspects that are, quite frankly, perfectly well-advertised, in light of all these positive aspects, you don't deserve your position in esports, from a grand cosmic perspective. You should go do something that actually sucks.

Firstly as far as the amount of computers go, as far as I'm aware the 1st Summit had more computers for people to play on. This time they put the lounge stream instead of having extra computers for people to actually play dota on in a dota event.

On December 19 2014 19:48 FHDH wrote:

How many more? As Envy pointed out, they were accommodating 6 teams. Surely they didn't have 30 last time? Because that's a lot. For a house. So what number between 17 and 30 was it which was acceptable at the first Summit?

On December 19 2014 19:48 FHDH wrote:

How many more? As Envy pointed out, they were accommodating 6 teams. Surely they didn't have 30 last time? Because that's a lot. For a house. So what number between 17 and 30 was it which was acceptable at the first Summit?

On December 19 2014 23:07 hariooo wrote:


I'm noticing that you're not interesting in responding to the point why Envy shouldn't be mad that the computers that they did have were shit.

So far it sounds like Envy complaining means he should retire and find a real job whereas BTS admitting they shit the bed is "understandable" in your own words.

And to the other guy who said that EE is "whining" because he is bitter about being 2nd place again…. I mean come on. That line of thinking is actually embarrassingly silly. A tournament being a nice spectator experience overall doesn't mean that it is above criticism.

On December 19 2014 20:18 spudde123 wrote:


I'm not sure about how many, but I'm pretty sure they had the room where they now had the lounge stream filled with computers. Actually I'm not sure whether they had the room which was the 3rd player room now also filled with computers then, so in the end the number of computers in total may have been approximately the same. Of course it is absolutely impossible to fit a "personal practice computer" for every player in the house, but every additional computer you can fit in would be helpful for the players. There are two issues I think that players would want fixed, not sure how often each of these were an issue at the Summit 2.

Firstly, there were some situations where none of the teams playing in one match played in the next one. What this leads to is that one team gets to go to the 3rd player room to warmup well in advance, while the other team has to sit and wait without being able to set up in advance and warmup. If there were additional computers in the house, at least they could get the chance to warmup if they wanted to although they still have to switch their gear to the player room once the previous teams have finished.

Secondly, I imagine teams generally want to warmup and play some dota before their games if they start later on. If the team doesn't have a game, they can't access the player rooms at all. There may not be time to travel to an outside lan center to do this.

Between their actual games I doubt all players want to play games constantly, so you don't need a computer for everyone. But 2 computers outside of the player rooms which are constantly in use is not ideal. I don't think the lack of free computers is "tournament ruining" or anything at all, it's just not ideal. Some of it is definitely due to where the event is and it's simply impossible to fit a bunch of free computers there, and some of it is BTS prioritizing something else over having additional computers set up for players to use. I don't think it's the biggest thing, and EE didn't write about it for that long either. It seemed to be one of the things in his list of things that either went wrong or were not ideal from a player perspective. I think it's one of those things where a player thinks about it from his perspective and what are good conditions for the players, while tournament organizers may think about other factors (either making a tradeoff between accommodating the players and other concerns, or just forgetting what players hope for) and use additional space for some other purpose.

On December 20 2014 07:44 Sn0_Man wrote:
of course he would have

On December 20 2014 07:59 utcraigo14 wrote:


I think this is even worse (that EE would have still complained even if c9 won). The conditions were the same for all teams, and this shows why I love iceiceice more than EE. There's a pro that can get into the spirit of what The Summit was all about, and is probably part of why he performed so well there, was able to deal with the type of environment better, and helped VG to the win.

I really think that EE should have kept The Summit out of his post. If EG were going to complain, let them do it.

On December 20 2014 08:07 FHDH wrote:
Just to rewind this a few steps, I was originally responding to the statement "I'd have to say that his The Summit 2 rant was on point."

I mean, it was a rant. And it contained true things that happened in it. But you know what separates a rant from professional criticism? When you rant you just list everything that bothered you. When you make professional criticism you factor in mitigating circumstances, either choosing to omit certain items or tie them in to an overall narrative that recognizes the perspective of the other party. Because part of being an adult - what to speak of a professional - is being able to view things holistically, and seeing things from another person's perspective.

This is where Arteezy saying shit like "BTS went full sell-out mode" is so goddamned childish. Nice that you only have to play Dota and people pay you. But the entire infrastructure of professional Dota2 is people running businesses and having to make choices. In this case, they chose a PC sponsor, that PC sponsor precipitated basically every problem there was, other than Summit House being Summit House which is as predictable as you could ask for.

If you're a professional, you recognize that, and you treat others as professionals until they prove themselves otherwise. So you don't use Summit2 as an example of a poorly-thought out schedule - you say man, the schedule got fucked hard because of PC delays, this is hard on players. Etc.

Sorry, but his Summit rant was just that: a rant. Rants don't deserve the same respect as professional criticism. Much of his post is a rant. That is why people are dissecting it. It doesn't have a cohesive narrative or constructive criticism. It's just a laundry list of peeves, many of them totally discardable.

On December 20 2014 07:54 utcraigo14 wrote:


You actually missed the entire point of The Summit. It is modeled after HomeStory Cup for SC2, where they televise the pros playing poker and hanging out. The Summit is supposed to be about the part of Dota 2 we all love: that it's a game and is meant to be taken a little more lightly once in a while. That EE is a pro that cannot do this is a testament to his competitive spirit, but also the side of him that comes off as "whiny and childish." EE would probably be the first to admit this.

but fact is that whether they wanted or not the Summit was the most significant dota event after TI because of how large its prize pool got

On December 20 2014 21:25 FHDH wrote:

This is the subtext to a lot of the arguments against the format but the fact is that the prize pool was driven by the fans. BTS does not have an obligation to make the event moar srs based on the money becoming serious, they merely have an obligation to ensure the integrity of competition. Same applies to Captain's Draft which quickly raised a prize pool rivaling Summit2. A lot of this is driven by items, yes, but it's also driven by fan excitement for the event. If anything both of these organizations, and the pros who wish to compete over the prize pool, owe the fans the event they paid for.

On December 20 2014 21:34 spudde123 wrote:


I didn't say anything against the format. I also am not saying anywhere that BTS should make the event more serious, I'm questioning whether they can make it better. My point there was simply that from the player perspective the event is hardly casual competition wise or to be taken lightly, and they obviously want computers to work properly, enough computers for them to play on, whatever it may be. It doesn't have to take anything away from the viewer experience and having players cast and stuff.

On December 20 2014 23:07 FHDH wrote:

Well by "the format" I mean the event holistically, which is inclusive of things like the lounges etc. However I think it is reasonable to say, if you can have 17 PCs you can have 20 (two compete sets, two practice sets) + a couple of spares with some redirected resources, and that's a pretty reasonable middle ground given the event is explicitly one that eschews the trappings of a traditional LAN.

And my point is not directed at you, but more something you mentioned, which is that with that much money on the line players are going to take the competition seriously. But they have to accept the fact that that money is there to a large degree because people like the event the way it is, and therefore accept the fact that they do not get to go full tryhard mode when they go to Summit House, and lock themselves in a closet with a bank of PCs.