|
On May 02 2011 17:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:26 firehand101 wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:11 Asha` wrote:I was excited, then I read there was 2v2. Not this shit again  Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? 2v2 is somewhat entertaining, and i'm sure it is very exciting for many people. But trying to get blizzard to balance that is just plain impossible. Maybe it does have a place in tourneys, but not as a main event. Maybe as fun for the spectators pre-tourney they could have random pros teaming up to showcase crazy tactics! eg. MC and Julyzerg vs Idra and HuK ! lol well, blizzard is never going to balance the game around 2v2. there may be some perceived overpowered strategies, but both teams can put up the same races for those strats, which takes the imbalance away. people enjoy watching 2v2 and adding one game in a team league isn't going to break the system. there are dozens of tournaments for 1v1, some of us would like to see 2v2 once in awhile. also, if you put it as a pre-show, it takes the competitive edge away, and people stop taking it seriously.
maybe end tourney show? but you make a fair point.
I still don't believe 2v2 could ever be as balanced as 1v1, just because the number of possibilities have been largely increased
|
On May 02 2011 17:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:28 dtz wrote:On May 02 2011 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 17:14 dtz wrote:On May 02 2011 16:54 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 13:57 Swixi wrote:
-edited-
I have absolutely nothing against TL, but the fact that you think your view of fairness is objectively the best is pretty gross. Sure, switching between servers is optimal when it benefits a good amount of people, but I don't think you can necessarily purport that as the absolute truth in this specific situation; it's easily up for debate. ... Explain how that is not the objectively fairest solution then? Option 1: Everyone plays on NA Option 2: EU vs NA 50/50 eu/na, EU vs KR 100% NA, NA vs KR 50/50 KR/NA How is this not more fair? I really dont understand why its fine for me to play in lag, but as soon as its proposed that NA players play half their games under the same conditions, its suddenly unfair? Why? For the spectator here is the point of view that I think has been said by various people Option 1. Only 3 KR players have lag while Some EU players have not ideal latency but very playable according to a lot of people ( idra - playable, drewbie - zero lag). Unfair for KR. Slightly unfair for EU but ensure the highest number of players playing in as ideal condition as possible. Option 2. Much more teams have lag issues. Frustration ensue + Lower quality of play. Option 2 also means that Team Liquid has advantage in ace matches because they will never be at a disadvantage server wise. Otherwise, fair all around because everyone who plays cross server lags. Wait, why do we have an advantage in ace matches? Why is there more lag? There is not more lag, the lag is just distributed between more players. OK so theres 8 teams, so we would have played 7 matches. Lets say we use one kor player per game. So every week we have 1 laggy bo3, and KOR player has played 7 laggy series, lets say they all ended 2-0 in whatever favor, so 14 games. If we do the 50/50 solution, the KOR player has still played 7 laggy series, but only 7 laggy games. From each team we played, they will have had 1 player who had to play 1 laggy game. For the viewer the quality is unchanged. The advantage in ace matches is because no one knows before hand who will play against who. So no telling what server it will be played on. That's why every NA player from your opposition need to practice for all 3 server while from liquid, only 2 maximum. NA + home country. Lets say liquid vs dignitas. If it comes to ace, Select needs to prepare na kr eu because he doesnt know who he will play against. if its ret, he plays na eu. if tyler na only. if haypro/huk / you then its na kr. so he has to train all 3 server. Whereas for Tyler , he only need to train for 2 region ( na eu) because dignitas only has na + eu players. You make it sound like you have to train for it hard or something, just play a few games so its not the first time you play on the server =.= I play games on NA, KR and China, all 3 have different delays and it does not throw me off that badly nowadays.
When it's hurting TL chances it's a big enough deal to make a stand about but when it's hurting their opponents chances it's not that big of a deal?
I started this off thinking both sides were being pretty reasonable but the more we hear the more and more I'm thinking TL is being quite hypocritical and unreasonable.
Edit: Jinro has clarified what he meant;
Liquid`Jinro wrote:
I believe you are misunderstanding me -_-
To get used to lag, and thereby play as good as is possible under the conditions, you dont need that many games.
I am not saying "Oh play a few games and lag wont affect you at all", its still there, it doesnt go away.
I never play on NA in my day to day practice, but I play better on NA now after having played a dozen or so tournament games on there, than I did the first time I played.
|
On May 02 2011 17:43 infinity2k9 wrote:
2v2 is always going to be just some kind of tier 1 rush. It's not going to be particularly entertaining other than a display of early game micro.
it was like this in the early stages, but as people got used to the early rushes it has evolved quite a bit. seeing pro players dealing with these early rushes will show the rest of us how to play 2v2 and evolve the matchup even more.
|
On May 02 2011 17:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 firehand101 wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:11 Asha` wrote:I was excited, then I read there was 2v2. Not this shit again Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? 2v2 is somewhat entertaining, and i'm sure it is very exciting for many people. But trying to get blizzard to balance that is just plain impossible. Maybe it does have a place in tourneys, but not as a main event. Maybe as fun for the spectators pre-tourney they could have random pros teaming up to showcase crazy tactics! eg. MC and Julyzerg vs Idra and HuK ! lol well, blizzard is never going to balance the game around 2v2. there may be some perceived overpowered strategies, but both teams can put up the same races for those strats, which takes the imbalance away. people enjoy watching 2v2 and adding one game in a team league isn't going to break the system. there are dozens of tournaments for 1v1, some of us would like to see 2v2 once in awhile. also, if you put it as a pre-show, it takes the competitive edge away, and people stop taking it seriously. The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:29 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:24 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:11 Asha` wrote:I was excited, then I read there was 2v2. Not this shit again Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? FFA are entertaining to watch as well, it doesn't mean its healthy for the league. not sure how that even relates. how are you going to do a ffa in a team league? i am also ignoring the fact that ffa games don't reflect skill as it has more to do with luck than anything else. 2v2 is entertaining, involves well developed skills and strategies, and fits with a team league. The concept is the same. The skill required in a 1v1 situation is based solely on yourself. 2v2 has to many variables to incorporate it into a competitive environment successfully. 1v1 leagues have always been the most successful and benefits both the spectator and the player more. I am not exactly sure what you are saying. 2v2 is very competitive and there are top level players consistently on the top of the master's league who play each other and refine their builds. i have even played eg's axslav and strifecro in 2v2. it is obviously not the same as 1v1 because it relies on team play, but just because its not the same as 1v1 doesn't mean its not somehow a competitive part of sc2. also, 2v2 has recently got a lot of attention because of day9's showcase this last week. watching 2v2 is an untapped resource for leagues in my opinion.
What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins.
|
Sure it's competitive, no doubt about that. But it's going to be a lot of short games which all play out pretty similarly. Balance is irrelevant since people will just end up picking the same combos if one is better. However that makes it even more boring.
On May 02 2011 17:46 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:43 infinity2k9 wrote:
2v2 is always going to be just some kind of tier 1 rush. It's not going to be particularly entertaining other than a display of early game micro. it was like this in the early stages, but as people got used to the early rushes it has evolved quite a bit. seeing pro players dealing with these early rushes will show the rest of us how to play 2v2 and evolve the matchup even more.
Well, yes. I hope this is the case but it remains to be seen. If people work out builds that let them tech/expand while not allowing their ally to die then a wide variety of strategies could be unlocked. But as far as i'm aware high level 2v2 doesn't get that far yet. I was quite a big fan of 2v2 in BW, especially on Hunters (people still have tournaments for 2v2 today just on this map). Since i've found SC2 1v1 underwhelming as a spectator it'd be interesting if 2v2 actually turned out to be good. Low tier unit micro battles is fun as long as some kind of variety is possible.
|
Iraq1230 Posts
On May 02 2011 17:44 TheButtonmen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 17:28 dtz wrote:On May 02 2011 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 17:14 dtz wrote:On May 02 2011 16:54 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 13:57 Swixi wrote:
-edited-
I have absolutely nothing against TL, but the fact that you think your view of fairness is objectively the best is pretty gross. Sure, switching between servers is optimal when it benefits a good amount of people, but I don't think you can necessarily purport that as the absolute truth in this specific situation; it's easily up for debate. ... Explain how that is not the objectively fairest solution then? Option 1: Everyone plays on NA Option 2: EU vs NA 50/50 eu/na, EU vs KR 100% NA, NA vs KR 50/50 KR/NA How is this not more fair? I really dont understand why its fine for me to play in lag, but as soon as its proposed that NA players play half their games under the same conditions, its suddenly unfair? Why? For the spectator here is the point of view that I think has been said by various people Option 1. Only 3 KR players have lag while Some EU players have not ideal latency but very playable according to a lot of people ( idra - playable, drewbie - zero lag). Unfair for KR. Slightly unfair for EU but ensure the highest number of players playing in as ideal condition as possible. Option 2. Much more teams have lag issues. Frustration ensue + Lower quality of play. Option 2 also means that Team Liquid has advantage in ace matches because they will never be at a disadvantage server wise. Otherwise, fair all around because everyone who plays cross server lags. Wait, why do we have an advantage in ace matches? Why is there more lag? There is not more lag, the lag is just distributed between more players. OK so theres 8 teams, so we would have played 7 matches. Lets say we use one kor player per game. So every week we have 1 laggy bo3, and KOR player has played 7 laggy series, lets say they all ended 2-0 in whatever favor, so 14 games. If we do the 50/50 solution, the KOR player has still played 7 laggy series, but only 7 laggy games. From each team we played, they will have had 1 player who had to play 1 laggy game. For the viewer the quality is unchanged. The advantage in ace matches is because no one knows before hand who will play against who. So no telling what server it will be played on. That's why every NA player from your opposition need to practice for all 3 server while from liquid, only 2 maximum. NA + home country. Lets say liquid vs dignitas. If it comes to ace, Select needs to prepare na kr eu because he doesnt know who he will play against. if its ret, he plays na eu. if tyler na only. if haypro/huk / you then its na kr. so he has to train all 3 server. Whereas for Tyler , he only need to train for 2 region ( na eu) because dignitas only has na + eu players. You make it sound like you have to train for it hard or something, just play a few games so its not the first time you play on the server =.= I play games on NA, KR and China, all 3 have different delays and it does not throw me off that badly nowadays. When it's hurting TL chances it's a big enough deal to make a stand about but when it's hurting their opponents chances it's not that big of a deal? I started this off thinking both sides were being pretty reasonable but the more we hear the more and more I'm thinking TL is being quite hypocritical and unreasonable.
i think its time for u to stop thinking
|
Awesome stuff, and Idra casting some even ? Even more awesome!
|
On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:
The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league.
It's also highly possible for a team to force an ace match by winning the 2v2 game.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 02 2011 17:44 TheButtonmen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 17:28 dtz wrote:On May 02 2011 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 17:14 dtz wrote:On May 02 2011 16:54 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 13:57 Swixi wrote:
-edited-
I have absolutely nothing against TL, but the fact that you think your view of fairness is objectively the best is pretty gross. Sure, switching between servers is optimal when it benefits a good amount of people, but I don't think you can necessarily purport that as the absolute truth in this specific situation; it's easily up for debate. ... Explain how that is not the objectively fairest solution then? Option 1: Everyone plays on NA Option 2: EU vs NA 50/50 eu/na, EU vs KR 100% NA, NA vs KR 50/50 KR/NA How is this not more fair? I really dont understand why its fine for me to play in lag, but as soon as its proposed that NA players play half their games under the same conditions, its suddenly unfair? Why? For the spectator here is the point of view that I think has been said by various people Option 1. Only 3 KR players have lag while Some EU players have not ideal latency but very playable according to a lot of people ( idra - playable, drewbie - zero lag). Unfair for KR. Slightly unfair for EU but ensure the highest number of players playing in as ideal condition as possible. Option 2. Much more teams have lag issues. Frustration ensue + Lower quality of play. Option 2 also means that Team Liquid has advantage in ace matches because they will never be at a disadvantage server wise. Otherwise, fair all around because everyone who plays cross server lags. Wait, why do we have an advantage in ace matches? Why is there more lag? There is not more lag, the lag is just distributed between more players. OK so theres 8 teams, so we would have played 7 matches. Lets say we use one kor player per game. So every week we have 1 laggy bo3, and KOR player has played 7 laggy series, lets say they all ended 2-0 in whatever favor, so 14 games. If we do the 50/50 solution, the KOR player has still played 7 laggy series, but only 7 laggy games. From each team we played, they will have had 1 player who had to play 1 laggy game. For the viewer the quality is unchanged. The advantage in ace matches is because no one knows before hand who will play against who. So no telling what server it will be played on. That's why every NA player from your opposition need to practice for all 3 server while from liquid, only 2 maximum. NA + home country. Lets say liquid vs dignitas. If it comes to ace, Select needs to prepare na kr eu because he doesnt know who he will play against. if its ret, he plays na eu. if tyler na only. if haypro/huk / you then its na kr. so he has to train all 3 server. Whereas for Tyler , he only need to train for 2 region ( na eu) because dignitas only has na + eu players. You make it sound like you have to train for it hard or something, just play a few games so its not the first time you play on the server =.= I play games on NA, KR and China, all 3 have different delays and it does not throw me off that badly nowadays. When it's hurting TL chances it's a big enough deal to make a stand about but when it's hurting their opponents chances it's not that big of a deal? I started this off thinking both sides were being pretty reasonable but the more we hear the more and more I'm thinking TL is being quite hypocritical and unreasonable.
I believe you are misunderstanding me -_-
To get used to lag, and thereby play as good as is possible under the conditions, you dont need that many games.
I am not saying "Oh play a few games and lag wont affect you at all", its still there, it doesnt go away.
I never play on NA in my day to day practice, but I play better on NA now after having played a dozen or so tournament games on there, than I did the first time I played.
|
On May 02 2011 17:49 Hatorade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:
The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. It's also highly possible for a team to force an ace match by winning the 2v2 game.
Who wants the determinant of an ace match to rest on 2v2...
|
On May 02 2011 17:48 Liquid`HayprO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:44 TheButtonmen wrote:On May 02 2011 17:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 17:28 dtz wrote:On May 02 2011 17:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 17:14 dtz wrote:On May 02 2011 16:54 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 02 2011 13:57 Swixi wrote:
-edited-
I have absolutely nothing against TL, but the fact that you think your view of fairness is objectively the best is pretty gross. Sure, switching between servers is optimal when it benefits a good amount of people, but I don't think you can necessarily purport that as the absolute truth in this specific situation; it's easily up for debate. ... Explain how that is not the objectively fairest solution then? Option 1: Everyone plays on NA Option 2: EU vs NA 50/50 eu/na, EU vs KR 100% NA, NA vs KR 50/50 KR/NA How is this not more fair? I really dont understand why its fine for me to play in lag, but as soon as its proposed that NA players play half their games under the same conditions, its suddenly unfair? Why? For the spectator here is the point of view that I think has been said by various people Option 1. Only 3 KR players have lag while Some EU players have not ideal latency but very playable according to a lot of people ( idra - playable, drewbie - zero lag). Unfair for KR. Slightly unfair for EU but ensure the highest number of players playing in as ideal condition as possible. Option 2. Much more teams have lag issues. Frustration ensue + Lower quality of play. Option 2 also means that Team Liquid has advantage in ace matches because they will never be at a disadvantage server wise. Otherwise, fair all around because everyone who plays cross server lags. Wait, why do we have an advantage in ace matches? Why is there more lag? There is not more lag, the lag is just distributed between more players. OK so theres 8 teams, so we would have played 7 matches. Lets say we use one kor player per game. So every week we have 1 laggy bo3, and KOR player has played 7 laggy series, lets say they all ended 2-0 in whatever favor, so 14 games. If we do the 50/50 solution, the KOR player has still played 7 laggy series, but only 7 laggy games. From each team we played, they will have had 1 player who had to play 1 laggy game. For the viewer the quality is unchanged. The advantage in ace matches is because no one knows before hand who will play against who. So no telling what server it will be played on. That's why every NA player from your opposition need to practice for all 3 server while from liquid, only 2 maximum. NA + home country. Lets say liquid vs dignitas. If it comes to ace, Select needs to prepare na kr eu because he doesnt know who he will play against. if its ret, he plays na eu. if tyler na only. if haypro/huk / you then its na kr. so he has to train all 3 server. Whereas for Tyler , he only need to train for 2 region ( na eu) because dignitas only has na + eu players. You make it sound like you have to train for it hard or something, just play a few games so its not the first time you play on the server =.= I play games on NA, KR and China, all 3 have different delays and it does not throw me off that badly nowadays. When it's hurting TL chances it's a big enough deal to make a stand about but when it's hurting their opponents chances it's not that big of a deal? I started this off thinking both sides were being pretty reasonable but the more we hear the more and more I'm thinking TL is being quite hypocritical and unreasonable. i think its time for u to stop thinking
If I'm misunderstanding something please correct me;
Either three Liquid players have to practice playing on NA from KR, something which Jinro just stated isn't that difficult.
On May 02 2011 17:29 Liquid`Jinro wrote:You make it sound like you have to train for it hard or something, just play a few games so its not the first time you play on the server =.= I play games on NA, KR and China, all 3 have different delays and it does not throw me off that badly nowadays.
Or everybody else in the league needs to learn to play on KR from EU/NA.
I'm not saying that TL made a terrible call by not entering but I'm not seeing what's so wrong with the call that EG made when organizing the tournament.
Edit: Jinro just clarifyed on his previous post.
On May 02 2011 17:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:I believe you are misunderstanding me -_-
To get used to lag, and thereby play as good as is possible under the conditions, you dont need that many games.
I am not saying "Oh play a few games and lag wont affect you at all", its still there, it doesnt go away.
I never play on NA in my day to day practice, but I play better on NA now after having played a dozen or so tournament games on there, than I did the first time I played.
So my previous statement about the difficulty is incorrect but what I said about the numbers (3 vs the rest) still stands.
|
On May 02 2011 17:47 Skipton wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 firehand101 wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:11 Asha` wrote:I was excited, then I read there was 2v2. Not this shit again Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? 2v2 is somewhat entertaining, and i'm sure it is very exciting for many people. But trying to get blizzard to balance that is just plain impossible. Maybe it does have a place in tourneys, but not as a main event. Maybe as fun for the spectators pre-tourney they could have random pros teaming up to showcase crazy tactics! eg. MC and Julyzerg vs Idra and HuK ! lol well, blizzard is never going to balance the game around 2v2. there may be some perceived overpowered strategies, but both teams can put up the same races for those strats, which takes the imbalance away. people enjoy watching 2v2 and adding one game in a team league isn't going to break the system. there are dozens of tournaments for 1v1, some of us would like to see 2v2 once in awhile. also, if you put it as a pre-show, it takes the competitive edge away, and people stop taking it seriously. The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. On May 02 2011 17:29 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:24 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:11 Asha` wrote:I was excited, then I read there was 2v2. Not this shit again Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? FFA are entertaining to watch as well, it doesn't mean its healthy for the league. not sure how that even relates. how are you going to do a ffa in a team league? i am also ignoring the fact that ffa games don't reflect skill as it has more to do with luck than anything else. 2v2 is entertaining, involves well developed skills and strategies, and fits with a team league. The concept is the same. The skill required in a 1v1 situation is based solely on yourself. 2v2 has to many variables to incorporate it into a competitive environment successfully. 1v1 leagues have always been the most successful and benefits both the spectator and the player more. I am not exactly sure what you are saying. 2v2 is very competitive and there are top level players consistently on the top of the master's league who play each other and refine their builds. i have even played eg's axslav and strifecro in 2v2. it is obviously not the same as 1v1 because it relies on team play, but just because its not the same as 1v1 doesn't mean its not somehow a competitive part of sc2. also, 2v2 has recently got a lot of attention because of day9's showcase this last week. watching 2v2 is an untapped resource for leagues in my opinion. What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins.
99.9% of sc2 competitions are not team leagues, they are individual leagues. if they don't start here then where are they going to start? every team league that is going to attract the big teams is going to require a lot of money to get serious attention, so $10,000 really isn't that big of a deal. also, 2v2 is highly competitive. it may not be as refined as 1v1 play, but there are a lot of people who solely play 2v2 team games and developing strategies, etc.
I would agree that there should be more than 3 1v1 matchups (aside from the ace match) in the lineups, but i think that limitation was more due to the size of teams than by choice. this isn't a reason to just not do 2v2 matchups though. if you don't do it in these team leagues, there is nowhere else to do it.
|
Also as Skipton said it's kinda weird to put 2v2 into a league for so much money, when it's not even been in anything before or it's own tournaments. I guess the teams will just use their 1v1 skills rather than having 2v2 specialists mostly. I wouldn't mind seeing like a separate tournament for $2,000 or something that was solely 2v2 and somehow tied into this as well, people will be more dedicated towards it then.
|
In any case , is it said somewhere if the 2v2 team needs to be different than the 1v1 players?
I know Dignitas had Killer but not sure if they had another one and how good he is. I suppose they did a UK Gamer search so maybe we can see new talent popping out.
|
On May 02 2011 17:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:47 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 firehand101 wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:11 Asha` wrote:I was excited, then I read there was 2v2. Not this shit again Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? 2v2 is somewhat entertaining, and i'm sure it is very exciting for many people. But trying to get blizzard to balance that is just plain impossible. Maybe it does have a place in tourneys, but not as a main event. Maybe as fun for the spectators pre-tourney they could have random pros teaming up to showcase crazy tactics! eg. MC and Julyzerg vs Idra and HuK ! lol well, blizzard is never going to balance the game around 2v2. there may be some perceived overpowered strategies, but both teams can put up the same races for those strats, which takes the imbalance away. people enjoy watching 2v2 and adding one game in a team league isn't going to break the system. there are dozens of tournaments for 1v1, some of us would like to see 2v2 once in awhile. also, if you put it as a pre-show, it takes the competitive edge away, and people stop taking it seriously. The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. On May 02 2011 17:29 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:24 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:11 Asha` wrote:I was excited, then I read there was 2v2. Not this shit again Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? FFA are entertaining to watch as well, it doesn't mean its healthy for the league. not sure how that even relates. how are you going to do a ffa in a team league? i am also ignoring the fact that ffa games don't reflect skill as it has more to do with luck than anything else. 2v2 is entertaining, involves well developed skills and strategies, and fits with a team league. The concept is the same. The skill required in a 1v1 situation is based solely on yourself. 2v2 has to many variables to incorporate it into a competitive environment successfully. 1v1 leagues have always been the most successful and benefits both the spectator and the player more. I am not exactly sure what you are saying. 2v2 is very competitive and there are top level players consistently on the top of the master's league who play each other and refine their builds. i have even played eg's axslav and strifecro in 2v2. it is obviously not the same as 1v1 because it relies on team play, but just because its not the same as 1v1 doesn't mean its not somehow a competitive part of sc2. also, 2v2 has recently got a lot of attention because of day9's showcase this last week. watching 2v2 is an untapped resource for leagues in my opinion. What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins. 99.9% of sc2 competitions are not team leagues, they are individual leagues. if they don't start here then where are they going to start? every team league that is going to attract the big teams is going to require a lot of money to get serious attention, so $10,000 really isn't that big of a deal. also, 2v2 is highly competitive. it may not be as refined as 1v1 play, but there are a lot of people who solely play 2v2 team games and developing strategies, etc. I would agree that there should be more than 3 1v1 matchups (aside from the ace match) in the lineups, but i think that limitation was more due to the size of teams than by choice. this isn't a reason to just not do 2v2 matchups though. if you don't do it in these team leagues, there is nowhere else to do it.
There shouldn't be another place to do it because it simply does not belong in competition. The game is simply more balanced around 1v1 so 1v1 should be played 100% of the time. No player that plays competitively plays 2v2 unless they have something to gain from it ( winnings ). The level of skill will simply be lower thereby making it worse for a spectator.
|
On May 02 2011 17:52 Skipton wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:49 Hatorade wrote:On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:
The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. It's also highly possible for a team to force an ace match by winning the 2v2 game. Who wants the determinant of an ace match to rest on 2v2...
I'm sure most people wouldn't care what the ace match rests on if they get to see an extra best of 3 in the end. I only made that point because it seemed as if you were stating that the 2v2s would cause us to see less Ace matches or something.
|
What i don't get about this whole Issue:
In an FPS you wouldn't even think about playing Cross-Continent... Due to lag.
If Liquid would have no players in Korea no one would even think about inviting a Korean Team due to the lag.
You can play SC2 with a way bigger delay than an FPS and still be competetive, but you should not embrace it and you should not argue it "away" with retarded stuff like "the delay is the same for everyone"... Even if it is, you don't see an FPS played with 250ms Ping, even if all players have exactly the same lag.
You want truly global and fair competition? Lans are the way to go, there is just no way around it.
You want regular Leagues? Keep them "on"-continent (or NA/EU, as long as all the players think it's fine).
Empire would have more right to complain for not being part of this (if they didn't get invited!) than Liquid being invited but not wanting to play due to issues which only exist due to the situation of their players.
Btw:
The TSL did everything right with it's qualifications... Until inviting half their players and having nearly everything played out online. Which is undestandable due to cost but still, as we know, far from ideal.
|
On May 02 2011 17:58 Hatorade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:52 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:49 Hatorade wrote:On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:
The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. It's also highly possible for a team to force an ace match by winning the 2v2 game. Who wants the determinant of an ace match to rest on 2v2... I'm sure most people wouldn't care what the ace match rests on if they get to see an extra best of 3 in the end. I only made that point because it seemed as if you were stating that the 2v2s would cause us to see less Ace matches or something.
Not really less ace matches, but I would argue that the fans rooting for their favorite teams would feel robbed if they lost the ace match after losing the 2v2.
|
On May 02 2011 17:57 Skipton wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:47 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 firehand101 wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:11 Asha` wrote:I was excited, then I read there was 2v2. Not this shit again Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? 2v2 is somewhat entertaining, and i'm sure it is very exciting for many people. But trying to get blizzard to balance that is just plain impossible. Maybe it does have a place in tourneys, but not as a main event. Maybe as fun for the spectators pre-tourney they could have random pros teaming up to showcase crazy tactics! eg. MC and Julyzerg vs Idra and HuK ! lol well, blizzard is never going to balance the game around 2v2. there may be some perceived overpowered strategies, but both teams can put up the same races for those strats, which takes the imbalance away. people enjoy watching 2v2 and adding one game in a team league isn't going to break the system. there are dozens of tournaments for 1v1, some of us would like to see 2v2 once in awhile. also, if you put it as a pre-show, it takes the competitive edge away, and people stop taking it seriously. The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. On May 02 2011 17:29 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:24 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:11 Asha` wrote:I was excited, then I read there was 2v2. Not this shit again Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? FFA are entertaining to watch as well, it doesn't mean its healthy for the league. not sure how that even relates. how are you going to do a ffa in a team league? i am also ignoring the fact that ffa games don't reflect skill as it has more to do with luck than anything else. 2v2 is entertaining, involves well developed skills and strategies, and fits with a team league. The concept is the same. The skill required in a 1v1 situation is based solely on yourself. 2v2 has to many variables to incorporate it into a competitive environment successfully. 1v1 leagues have always been the most successful and benefits both the spectator and the player more. I am not exactly sure what you are saying. 2v2 is very competitive and there are top level players consistently on the top of the master's league who play each other and refine their builds. i have even played eg's axslav and strifecro in 2v2. it is obviously not the same as 1v1 because it relies on team play, but just because its not the same as 1v1 doesn't mean its not somehow a competitive part of sc2. also, 2v2 has recently got a lot of attention because of day9's showcase this last week. watching 2v2 is an untapped resource for leagues in my opinion. What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins. 99.9% of sc2 competitions are not team leagues, they are individual leagues. if they don't start here then where are they going to start? every team league that is going to attract the big teams is going to require a lot of money to get serious attention, so $10,000 really isn't that big of a deal. also, 2v2 is highly competitive. it may not be as refined as 1v1 play, but there are a lot of people who solely play 2v2 team games and developing strategies, etc. I would agree that there should be more than 3 1v1 matchups (aside from the ace match) in the lineups, but i think that limitation was more due to the size of teams than by choice. this isn't a reason to just not do 2v2 matchups though. if you don't do it in these team leagues, there is nowhere else to do it. There shouldn't be another place to do it because it simply does not belong in competition. The game is simply more balanced around 1v1 so 1v1 should be played 100% of the time. No player that plays competitively plays 2v2 unless they have something to gain from it ( winnings ). The level of skill will simply be lower thereby making it worse for a spectator.
you seem to think that (1) its not competitive enough for leagues, and (2) that it is not entertaining. both of which i disagree with, and so do many others . i understand you think it doesn't fit because the balance and refinement (because these teams probably have less experience in 2v2 than 1v1) is not there. however, it is fun to watch so you will just have to suffer through it. EG obviously agrees with me and the rest of us who think it is fun to watch and sufficiently competitive for a team league.
for those who think it should be a separate league, it was for ESL, but it failed because there was no money in it. nobody is going to focus on 2v2 when the money is in 1v1. EG will change that by putting some money on the line.
|
On May 02 2011 18:02 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:57 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:53 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:47 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:36 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 firehand101 wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:
[quote]
Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? 2v2 is somewhat entertaining, and i'm sure it is very exciting for many people. But trying to get blizzard to balance that is just plain impossible. Maybe it does have a place in tourneys, but not as a main event. Maybe as fun for the spectators pre-tourney they could have random pros teaming up to showcase crazy tactics! eg. MC and Julyzerg vs Idra and HuK ! lol well, blizzard is never going to balance the game around 2v2. there may be some perceived overpowered strategies, but both teams can put up the same races for those strats, which takes the imbalance away. people enjoy watching 2v2 and adding one game in a team league isn't going to break the system. there are dozens of tournaments for 1v1, some of us would like to see 2v2 once in awhile. also, if you put it as a pre-show, it takes the competitive edge away, and people stop taking it seriously. The format is not built around competition so it's hard to say if it has a competitive edge in the first place. It is highly possible for the majority of the games in the league to end on the 2v2 match, instead of the ace match. This will cause more harm than good to the league. On May 02 2011 17:29 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:24 Skipton wrote:On May 02 2011 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 02 2011 17:15 Skipton wrote:
[quote]
Exactly, it diminishes the status of the league. There are honestly no positive aspects at all of 2v2 matches in a competitive format. I don't see how any player in the league would rather have a 2v2 match than an extra 1v1 match. 2v2 matches are very entertaining to watch. isnt that the purpose of a league? FFA are entertaining to watch as well, it doesn't mean its healthy for the league. not sure how that even relates. how are you going to do a ffa in a team league? i am also ignoring the fact that ffa games don't reflect skill as it has more to do with luck than anything else. 2v2 is entertaining, involves well developed skills and strategies, and fits with a team league. The concept is the same. The skill required in a 1v1 situation is based solely on yourself. 2v2 has to many variables to incorporate it into a competitive environment successfully. 1v1 leagues have always been the most successful and benefits both the spectator and the player more. I am not exactly sure what you are saying. 2v2 is very competitive and there are top level players consistently on the top of the master's league who play each other and refine their builds. i have even played eg's axslav and strifecro in 2v2. it is obviously not the same as 1v1 because it relies on team play, but just because its not the same as 1v1 doesn't mean its not somehow a competitive part of sc2. also, 2v2 has recently got a lot of attention because of day9's showcase this last week. watching 2v2 is an untapped resource for leagues in my opinion. What I am saying is that in 99.9% of sc2 competition there is no 2v2 involved. I honestly don't believe that a $10,000 league should represent the 0.1% of competition that throws in a 2v2 match "just because". You can make your argument that it is competitive. I'll state though that it is not anywhere close AT ALL to being as competitive as 1v1 and if this league wants a high level of competition than 1v1 should be the sole representation of determining who wins. 99.9% of sc2 competitions are not team leagues, they are individual leagues. if they don't start here then where are they going to start? every team league that is going to attract the big teams is going to require a lot of money to get serious attention, so $10,000 really isn't that big of a deal. also, 2v2 is highly competitive. it may not be as refined as 1v1 play, but there are a lot of people who solely play 2v2 team games and developing strategies, etc. I would agree that there should be more than 3 1v1 matchups (aside from the ace match) in the lineups, but i think that limitation was more due to the size of teams than by choice. this isn't a reason to just not do 2v2 matchups though. if you don't do it in these team leagues, there is nowhere else to do it. There shouldn't be another place to do it because it simply does not belong in competition. The game is simply more balanced around 1v1 so 1v1 should be played 100% of the time. No player that plays competitively plays 2v2 unless they have something to gain from it ( winnings ). The level of skill will simply be lower thereby making it worse for a spectator. you seem to think that (1) its not competitive enough for leagues, and (2) that it is not entertaining. both of which i disagree with, and so do many others . i understand you think it doesn't fit because the balance and refinement (because these teams probably have less experience in 2v2 than 1v1) is not there. however, it is fun to watch so you will just have to suffer through it. EG obviously agrees with me and the rest of us who think it is fun to watch and sufficiently competitive for a team league. for those who think it should be a separate league, it was for ESL, but it failed because there was no money in it. nobody is going to focus on 2v2 when the money is in 1v1. EG will change that by putting some money on the line.
Time will tell i suppose. I am willing to bet that EG will realize their mistake and the next league won't have 2v2 at all. I really hope they elaborate on why it's in their though, because I am positive that more people would rather it not be in there if a poll was created.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
