|
8748 Posts
I don't fully understand how teams are such an important issue to the NASL. I think there are 3 issues related to teams:
Collusion: Separating out teammates should reduce collusion. But so does having teammates play each other first. I think it's possible that that makes collusion impossible in divisional play, depending on how they score the groups. I believe Geoff (incontrol) said it'd still be possible, but I'm not sure how, so if Geoff/Xeris/whoever wants to make it clear, go ahead.
It seems to me that if some stars do some serious aligning, the best case scenario is a 3-way tie could be forced, but that would have to involve a sacrifice. Someone would have to lose to a non-teammate in order to force a 3 way tie between himself, his teammate, and this non-teammate, whereas if he won, he'd secure 1st for himself, 2nd for the non-teammate, and 3rd for his teammate. So yeah, he could collude and force a re-game, but it's not creating a better situation for himself and his teammate. What's the point of it? I don't consider that a situation where collusion is possible.
But even this could be avoided if you didn't have every match mapped out from day 1. Announce the matchups 6 days in advance. It's plenty of time for both the fans and the players. By picking the order that games are played in as the competition progresses, you can completely avoid the possibility for collusion.
Diversity:You want to have a wide variety of teams participating so that this diversity can enhance story lines and the drama of the competition.
First, team kill matches have drama and a good story line. If you put all the team kill matches in the first rounds to prevent collusion, you can even focus on the first rounds being unofficially known as the team kill rounds, or whatever clever way you want to hype it up. It'd be something interesting to watch when there's absolutely 0 drama going on about who is going to qualify for the finals because it's too early to tell. Teammate matches are sometimes very interesting gameplay-wise since they're practice partners. It's just literally not possible to have a unique story behind every match that is played and so adding in these team kill story lines actually improves the diversity.
Second, there are more ways to go all affirmative action on us if you really wanted to. Why do I see Xeris adamantly proclaiming in bold that there is no limit on the number of Europeans and Koreans being invited, saying that the most important thing is having the 50 best players? What's so much worse about having 10 TL players than having 10 Koreans (assuming skill level is equal)? I just don't get the obsession on team here. It's the one thing more important than having the best players but, in this respect, it's completely unsubstantiated as far as I've understood so far.
Accountability:You require players to be on a sponsored team because this makes them more accountable.
Well first I gotta say that I see a bit of inconsistency between this rule and the 5 players per team rule. Obviously a well known powerhosue team that's hugely sponsored team with a nice web site and exposure everywhere is going to have way more accountability than the ragtag group of "pretty good" players who haven't found a home yet that scrape together a team just good enough to meet NASL's definition of a sponsored team so that they can apply.
But that's exactly what you guys want. You want those random dudes that have had no real success so far, or at least not enough success to get recruited by any of the really good teams, to make a team and try to make it work. Or you want these unsuccessful teams or team managers who can't raise enough money to offer competitive contracts to recruit players to just be handed this bargaining chip of a slot for the NASL so that they can get these players. Then the players have a ridiculous choice between a better contract as the 6th best player with a good and reliable team or a worse contract as the top 5 best player on a worse team and also a chance for a spot in the NASL. But hey this is all for the players right?
Whoa that got off topic. Accountability. The $250 isn't enough? I imagine you looked at Naniwa and at the GCPL and pretty much the entire history of SC outside of Korea and knew you needed something more than being on a team. So you did something more and that's great. So why still the team requirement? For layers of accountability? Ok, maybe if player-team contracts had clauses like "if you don't act like a professional while representing us, then you receive this penalty" then yeah. I imagine some such clauses are in some existing player contracts. But not all. Even so, when a player does something dumb and it's not bad enough to get him kicked off his team, the team's job is to support the player and do damage control. Honestly I'd say that the guy who is on a well known team that will support his decisions and forgive his mistakes is able to get away with waaaaaayyy more than the random dude who has no one invested in his reputation, no one doing damage control for him, no one giving him a platform to explain his side of things or apologize, no important pillars in the community to either say "I agree with what he did" or "he made a mistake but he's a good guy and we still support him." God I would love to see what TLO could get away with haha.
And I can see how someone will think my first and third paragraphs are contradictory but they're not. The first is explaining how bad teams don't have accountability and the third is explaining how good teams don't have accountability either.
--------
So where I'm at now is just this... the collusion problem seems to not be a problem at all. The diversity thing is inconsistent, targeting only teams, with no explanation for that, and in fact it seems that having some powerhouse teams in the community actually adds to diversity in its own way. The accountability thing doesn't seem to work for the bad teams and for the good ones it depends on the content of the player-team contracts, which I think are not helping you at all at the moment, so your explanation doesn't apply to the current state of affairs, and you have no control over that. Helping out unsuccessful teams by giving them the "NASL slot" bargaining chip doesn't actually help teams at all unless it makes a significant difference in their ability to get sponsors. In the current state of affairs, it absolutely does not make a significant difference. But this bargaining chip hurts the players by drawing them away from tried-and-true good teams that offer the most stability. In other words, this rule is good only if there are a lot of good and stable teams out there ready to give good homes to players. There aren't. So it's actually harmful. Again, you have no control over this. If you were doing something to help teams AND doing this rule, it might be tolerable.
 
|
NoNy's logic>>>World . End of story.
Next point.
5/5 ezpz.
Edit:Holy snowball batman. 7 pages of posts in 15 mins?!
I think that while, in theory, there is no refuting Tylers logic, in practice, this is actually quite a niggly, minor issue. It also quite likely that they will change the rules after Season 1 kicks off and they have the time to self-evaluate. Stuff like a team limit can actually be waived very easily.
So while I actually hope the selection happens thru a qualifier system like GSL Season 1,2 and 3 and that they remove the team limit like NoNy said, I'm also fine with them going ahead with Season 1 in the way they see fit and changing stuff later with 20/20 hindsight.
Also, those saying that they dont want NA E-sport to get off to a bad start and all that can help sometimes by JLIG. Their system needs to stay the way they see fit and sometimes changing their rules to the whims of people too easily may be counterproductive to their legit image down the line.
Precedent is a very powerful thing and care shud be taken when doing it.
Remember MLGs adamant stance on map-pick rules(poor NoNy!). They got a shit-ton of flak for that but in the end evryone knew that they ran a LEGIT torney.
Just my 2 cents...
|
|
|
I think the issue is that larger teams such as oGs would have an issue bringing only 5 players from the team. I think the team concept is fine, but allowing only 5 just seems arbitrary.
Let teams figure out their own finances -- if they can send more, then there shouldn't be an issue with that.
|
It is a very backward way to do things and I hope they don't just have that -well we've already gone this far so we shouldn't change it- mentality.
|
I too find the player restriction to be pointless. Why should we force teams not to field their entire line up? It is better for entertainment value if we can have more power house players, and it certainly adds prestige to a tournament to have all the best players in the world present.
|
I agree entirely. It potentially hurts the league and it hurts teams if players are left out because their team happens to have a lot of great players
|
Haha, I knew you wouldn't be able to let it down since SOTG.
To be honest, I don't understand the whole setup even with your explanation, though you get a star for effort. However, I will dash my opinion on snippets of your topic: First, team kill matches have drama and a good story line. If you put all the team kill matches in the first rounds to prevent collusion, you can even focus on the first rounds being unofficially known as the team kill rounds, or whatever clever way you want to hype it up
I entirely agree. What was that story where Sean and his brother, Tasteless, practiced together for this tournament for months on end and in the end, had to vs. each other in the first round of a very important tournament? That's fucking gold man, that's some serious, serious dramatic story-telling! I can help but agree that although teams will hate being pitted against one another, it creates tension, discussions and huge anticipation. Gold for the NASL who would strive off of this and gold for the viewers who simple love eating this up.
Only the teams sever some losses, but it's just random and everyone has an equal chance of vs.ing a teammate especially if there's limited slots of team or players on a team.
________________
Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
To be honest, these are a lot of issues that don't seem that huge of an issue. Without anything actually starting, there seems to be a lot of disagreements without actually seeing how it all fans/pans/fairs out. It's not like these rules are set in stone and it's like there isn't any wiggle room.
|
I agree, the rule is telling teams to NOT have depth in their rosters. The best players possible should be invited, regardless of what teams they represent.
|
I don't see how the term "teams" even made it into an individual tournament. Teams aren't related to individual tournaments in any way, except that it's where the individual players probably gets most of their practice. Should two team mates hit each other in the tournament, the only thing that should pop into peoples' minds is "man, lotta mind games here!" (because they practice together etc). You can speculate as much as you want whether they decide who should win, but it will all be in vain since it's a god damn individual tournament with no focus on team performance. Should anything be done to prevent such thought I think it should be to design the tournament in a way that there's no way a team could ever benefit from chosing who they think has the best chances of winning the tournament. Tyler gave a good example of how this could work.
The general philosophy of the tournament seems like it should appeal lower end teams and for them to get their spot. However, I think an individual tournament should only determine who's the best individual player in THAT tournament regardless of what team that player is on. The tournament shouldn't restrict teams in any way. Especially not in such a way that potential gosus won't get their chance in the lime light.
|
8748 Posts
On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote:
Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
|
I agree with the points addressed here. I also wondered how this would work for larger teams, imagine if you have a very large team of amazing players, then not all of those amazing players could play and would be forced to quit said amazing team and join lesser teams in order to compete in NASL. That seems more like a penalty for having a large amazing team to me. (and kind of helps out individuals who happen to be in teams with not so many amazing players... hmmm makes you think doesn't it?)
Basically, is this system set up to bring forth the best, as in GSL; or, is it set up to bring forth certain people of influence.
|
I don't understand how there are going to be 20+ sponsored teams with the implicit assumption that the talent will be evenly distributed amongst them.
|
i agree, why not have qualifiers like the GSL? This way everyone can join, fair and square
|
On February 24 2011 06:35 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote:
Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams. Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
I'll agree that the idea of someone needs to be on a team in order to compete is silly. It's counter-productive for people who want to get into the professional-scene and it kind of portrays NASL as an elite league moreso than a convenient one for many North-American players. With the 250$ refundable tax, I agree that the need of being on a team is only showing little faith in the willingness of lone aspiring players. Am I making sense here or what?
I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa?
|
I kind of see the point he's making. This is an individual league, and the individual is the one making the money, not the team. This just seems like punishing people who are on good teams. Which may in turn make it harder for good teams to recruit new players.
I definitely understand where NASL is coming from with the limit on players per team, but I have to say that Tyler makes some VERY compelling points.
|
On February 24 2011 06:35 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote:
Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams. Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
Couldn't agree more.
I find team clauses should only relate to team leagues, if they want to make something like the Proleague from BW, then sure, otherwise, it's called an INDIVIDUAL league for a reason.
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On February 24 2011 06:15 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Diversity:team kill matches have drama and a good story line. If you put all the team kill matches in the first rounds to prevent collusion, you can even focus on the first rounds being unofficially known as the team kill rounds, or whatever clever way you want to hype it up. It'd be something interesting to watch when there's absolutely 0 drama going on about who is going to qualify for the finals because it's too early to tell. Teammate matches are sometimes very interesting gameplay-wise since they're practice partners. It's just literally not possible to have a unique story behind every match that is played and so adding in these team kill story lines actually improves the diversity.
Thank you Tyler. I've written out almost exactly your post twice, but decided not to post it because I didn't want to complain about something so obviously good for the community. My biggest concern with the tournament is that it seems to be overregulated. Obviously the organizers do not want things to go wrong, but adding rules that were never been used in previous tournaments introduces artifical limitations without providing much (if any) benefit. Just to add some points to yours:
First, the "players on teams are less likely to break rules" is pure pop psychology. If you can show me research supporting this then I'll take back my words, but I really doubt that. I mean, I can understand the roundabout logic: Because people are on a team, it shows that they are disciplined and mannered, and as such they should be those things in a tournament. However, the logic is tenuous at best, because player skill is a way larger determinant of being on a team than being mannered. Links as weak as these tend to have no significant effect.
To add to this, Xeris went on to say that teams are more likely to be able to sponsor their players. While true, this makes the money penalty more severe for players outside of teams since they will be losing their own money. As such, unsponsored players have a bigger incentive to follow the rules. Also, it's not as if not being sponsored will stop a player from flying out for the final 16. I mean, who wouldn't pay $500 for a 1/16 chance to make $100,000? In the extremely rare case that this happens, the tournament has ample replacements available from the group ladders. Money is the least likely reason for players to withdraw from the tournament, and the other reasons (like illness) are the same for players on teams and without teams.
Also, diversity should not be a problem for a tournament like this, especially considering that the organizers have the final say about which players get invited. The GSL has had great diversity in its participating teams even though teams like oGs are supposed to have 20+ members. In the international scene, few teams have more than 10 members, and almost no team has 5+ members that should feasibly be invited. Allowing teams to have more than 5 players will at most affect 5 spots out of the 50, which is nothing. Limiting the teams does nothing but frustrate the fans, annoy the top teams, and exclude top players. Like I said, if the organizers have the final say with the invites there is absolutely no reason to include such an artificial limitation.
All in all, I hope that the organizers take the feedback from the community seriously. We keep hearing that nothing has been finalized, so there's no reason to stick with rules like these (unless the organizers are not providing us with the real motivations for these rules). In both the previous TSLs, TL had to make changes due to community input, and that was after official statements had been released. At the time, I remember the community appreciating the fact that TL was willing to accept when it had made a mistake and change it. I hope the NASL is willing to do the same.
|
8748 Posts
On February 24 2011 06:43 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa?
You'd have to explain a little more about how it's like players sitting on the bench in a baseball match. The game of baseball requires only so many players, but teams are allowed to have more for substitutions, so some guys sit on the bench. I'm not sure how the concept of substituting in tired/injured players is relevant at all to SC2/NASL. If the guy on the bench is equally skilled, but has different strengths and weaknesses, then that gets into your next point. Team management strategy. But honestly I think that should be left to team leagues. While your example is somewhat interesting, it's just very minimally interesting tbh. When management decisions are made for team leagues, they're 10x more interesting and they constantly matter. Would you really be so interested in TL making the decision of what 5 players it's going to enter? Is it worth having some lesser skilled, relatively unknown player in the tournament instead of a 6th TL guy?
|
Liquid`Tyler for president 2012.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
