|
On May 02 2011 17:17 Frozenserpent wrote:Show nested quote +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? Well NA players suffer the most under the proposed rule change. KOR-NA latency is different from EU-NA latency and has different timings. So while KOR players just need to practice no latency and KOR-NA delay, and while EU players just need to practice no latency and EU-NA delay, NA players must split their practice between KOR-NA delay and EU-NA delay. Having to switch up between different delays can be quite troubling, while having an expected delay isn't so much. In fact, I imagine most players would fare very poorly at adjusting to 3 different timings between games (NA-NA latency, EU-NA latency, and KOR-NA latency). This can even be used to mess with player's timings in a cw. First play in a KOR-NA latency, then send in a EU player to get them to play in EU-NA latency in a short period of time. This is much worse than just playing in a set EU-NA latency or KOR-NA latency for both sets. So I don't really consider the proposed change to be completely fair, either.
I'm surprised that this post was so looked over.
Given that this argument can be made, it is not so cut and dry whether TL's suggestion even is the objectively fairer choice. And if that is the case, their whole stance is severely weakened, IMO.
|
This argument is a reflection on the lack of standardization for the different tournaments that have occurred since SC2's release over the past year. I am grateful for all the efforts so many have taken to do create all these different clan wars, but it is important to note the inconsistencies in the formats for these tournaments. I think this discussion reflects on the need for the big teams to come to a consensus as to what is and is not acceptable so that this discussion does not need to recur. I agree with Nazgul that the final decision on server balance should be up to the team leaders.
I agree with Idra tha the system Blizzard has in place is inappropriate and that the handicap this creates is unacceptable. His point of why the korean teams weren't invited is well taken. It is unfortunate however that Team Liquid right now are the only team left with many players left in KR. This places them in an uncomfortable situation and it is regrettable that TL should entirely pull out from the tournament as they have other excellent players such as Tyler, TLO and Ret (and it would be nice to see Nazgul play again like he did at MLG). Regardless of what teams are affected, a line must drawn and the question nevertheless remains, where? Resolving this question will indubitably affect how any team considers sending people to play in Korea in the future and reflects on Idra's decision to compete outside Korea.
Obviously, this is a sensitive issue (rightfully so) and I think we should follow HuK's recommendation to "manner up". InControl is right that it is inappropriate to slander teams (any of them).
On a lighter note, I may have skipped over a post on this, but considering Praetoriani's recent performance, did they also decline an invite?
|
On May 02 2011 21:22 djWHEAT wrote:
I guess I'm the exact opposite. This is a nice change, and while I do expect some crazy stuff (and mostly tier 1), how can two pros going at it in a 2v2 not be interesting?
I think what people are trying to say is that it isn't as interesting n the context of a match between two very competitive teams. It's like watching 3 extremely high level games between top tier players, and just as the match gets going and things heat up, BAM they slap you with a 2v2 game in the middle of it. Purely subjective of course, but that's how I feel about it, it's somehow underwhelming in the context of the team league format.
I'm not saying 2v2 match format doesn't have potential to grow, but if the potential is there, it should be able to grow on its own. When I hovered over thread titles in tournament section, I saw Starjeweled tournaments, as well as SC2BW tournaments, Morrow even made a prize contest for beating his own mod. If the mods can do it, then so can 2v2/3v3 formats - all it takes is somebody who has faith in that format to step up and put money on the line and see if it explodes.
But trying to sneak in via competitive team leagues and mingle between competitive 1v1 games isn't the right way to go about it IMO. There are no dedicated 2v2 players, so each team either needs to have two pro players use up some of the practice time they have on 2v2 (and I can't imagine anyone being happy about that) - or just get 2 players in a game and have them improvise (which won't bring out the best in 2v2 games).
|
On May 02 2011 21:22 djWHEAT 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. Wow you say that with a ton of confidence. Next time you goto the future can I hop in the DeLorean with you? I guess I'm the exact opposite. This is a nice change, and while I do expect some crazy stuff (and mostly tier 1), how can two pros going at it in a 2v2 not be interesting?
Because it ends up the same game every time with very little differences, it might be a nice change to begin with but it'll get stale. I already explained what i think would change 2v2 to allow teching/expansions but you just ignored that post.
It's very clear with the current units and on the current maps though, you can't NOT rush for tier 1 units. It'd be great if that wasn't the case but it is. What room is there for anything crazy in 2v2 when having a single unit less in an important battle could cause you to lose? Unless you're talking about just cheesing.
On May 02 2011 21:35 Mactator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 21:22 djWHEAT wrote: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. Wow you say that with a ton of confidence. Next time you goto the future can I hop in the DeLorean with you? I guess I'm the exact opposite. This is a nice change, and while I do expect some crazy stuff (and mostly tier 1), how can two pros going at it in a 2v2 not be interesting? Well said. Note that in 1v1 there are 6 different combination of races zvz, zvt .. etc. in 2v2 this number is much larger which allows for enormous different gameplay and game strategies. 2v2 is not trivial at all to play on a high level and I'm very excited to see some high level play here!
Some of this combination will not be viable at all though, and as a matter of fact it'll probably come down to everyone playing mirror races. Unless there's some magic trick to find some defenders advantage that nobody knows about to give some breathing room to tech/expo, I can't imagine much innovation taking place at all. Everything is just too mobile and too easy to immediately punish anyone who tries something unusual. It's quite fun to watch a micro battle but it get's old quick.
Talin sums it up well why this inclusion doesn't work so well. I'd like to see how a separate 2v2 tournament went though, especially if it had maps designed specifically for it. Making an interesting 2v2 map to allow a variety of strategies without resorting to shared bases or rocks blocking everything, and without simply allowing a player to get a 'free' expo or tech with no potential for any counter, would be a serious challenge. I have a few ideas but i don't know if they would work too well in a real game. Obviously even bigger maps is one thing that would help.
|
Is eSports already big enough, to be able to set "global" rules for all tournaments or not? Compare it to the FIFA association for soccer or the FIS for ski-sports or the FIA for racing competitions, which set guidelines and overall rules for all events being held under their name.
I am not judging anyone or siding with anyones opinions. But I have to say that I have huge respect for Idra and other gamers, who commit their careers to the foreign scene, because that's whats important for us europeans and americans and I believe that those rules set up by EG are supposed to further support that yes-we-can-mentality.
|
I think it's better this way. The latency issue with people playing from Korea just leads to people de-legitimizing the results. There's nothing strange with having online tournaments restricted to a few regions. For someone with an FPS background even having EU <-> NA play is pretty remarkable.
I mean, if the lag from KR <-> NA is so bad that the players in Korea don't want to play if they only play on the NA server then they shouldn't play at all. I don't think distributing a game changing disadvantage is a good solution at all. Is like taking turns playing with only the mouse or something. If it's that much of a hindrance then it undermines all the games.
|
On May 02 2011 22:03 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 21:22 djWHEAT wrote:
I guess I'm the exact opposite. This is a nice change, and while I do expect some crazy stuff (and mostly tier 1), how can two pros going at it in a 2v2 not be interesting?
...There are no dedicated 2v2 players, so each team either needs to have two pro players use up some of the practice time they have on 2v2 (and I can't imagine anyone being happy about that) - or just get 2 players in a game and have them improvise (which won't bring out the best in 2v2 games).
you are just wrong. the 2v2 scene may not get that much of attention, but there are some pretty dedicated teams out there that would love to show their skill in this kind of competition. If the 1v1 pros dont like 2v2 why don`t add a 2v2 Team to the roster? I at least am happy to see some teamaction during the clanwars and if it turnes out to be bad and most viewers hate it after the season is over, there might be changes for the next one.
|
On May 02 2011 21:30 cuppatea wrote:
It's interesting like seeing players offrace is interesting but it shouldn't be used to dilute a competitive league.
How will it dilute a competitive league when obviously these players will "Play to Win" in the 2v2 portion?
I guess I found a new topic for WoC, I don't see why people wouldn't want to at least see some 2v2 in action before completely dismissing it. If it sucks, I'm all for jumping on the OMG LAME bandwagon, but fuck man, a little variety has me very excited.
|
On May 02 2011 21:22 djWHEAT 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. Wow you say that with a ton of confidence. Next time you goto the future can I hop in the DeLorean with you? I guess I'm the exact opposite. This is a nice change, and while I do expect some crazy stuff (and mostly tier 1), how can two pros going at it in a 2v2 not be interesting?
it may be entertaining/interesting, but it won't be balanced/satisfying. and the tournament format forces the 2v2 game to be a deciding game. 3 1v1 BO1s followed by a 2v2 BO1? anytime it isn't 3-0, the possibility of an ACE match will depend entirely on the 2v2? why does such an untested and unbalanced bracket have such importance on the outcome of the series?
i'm all for entertainment, but i was really hoping for a lot better with the SC2 Team Leagues. i'm sure this tournament will have its moments, but I really don't want to see this format or ruleset set any future standards.
|
On May 02 2011 22:13 zul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 22:03 Talin wrote:On May 02 2011 21:22 djWHEAT wrote:
I guess I'm the exact opposite. This is a nice change, and while I do expect some crazy stuff (and mostly tier 1), how can two pros going at it in a 2v2 not be interesting?
...There are no dedicated 2v2 players, so each team either needs to have two pro players use up some of the practice time they have on 2v2 (and I can't imagine anyone being happy about that) - or just get 2 players in a game and have them improvise (which won't bring out the best in 2v2 games). you are just wrong. the 2v2 scene may not get that much of attention, but there are some pretty dedicated teams out there that would love to show their skill in this kind of competition. If the 1v1 pros dont like 2v2 why don`t add a 2v2 Team to the roster? I at least am happy to see some teamaction during the clanwars and if it turnes out to be bad and most viewers hate it after the season is over, there might be changes for the next one.
I meant that there are no dedicated 2v2 players ON the pro teams atm, not in general.
Adding dedicated 2v2 players would just not pay off for most teams, especially on contracts or anything. There's a 2v2 game in an occasional team league (this is I think only 2nd event that has it), and I'm pretty sure it won't become more standard than that.
As I said, if 2v2 scene really wants to develop, it's best for it to develop on its own.
|
I think it's good that someone gives 2v2 an honest shot in a fairly big tournament. It's easy to say 2v2 won't bring you any good games but I've seen many top level player say they rarely play 2v2 so how can we know how far they can push it if they actually take it seriously?
|
On May 02 2011 22:13 zul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 22:03 Talin wrote:On May 02 2011 21:22 djWHEAT wrote:
I guess I'm the exact opposite. This is a nice change, and while I do expect some crazy stuff (and mostly tier 1), how can two pros going at it in a 2v2 not be interesting?
...There are no dedicated 2v2 players, so each team either needs to have two pro players use up some of the practice time they have on 2v2 (and I can't imagine anyone being happy about that) - or just get 2 players in a game and have them improvise (which won't bring out the best in 2v2 games). you are just wrong. the 2v2 scene may not get that much of attention, but there are some pretty dedicated teams out there that would love to show their skill in this kind of competition. If the 1v1 pros dont like 2v2 why don`t add a 2v2 Team to the roster? I at least am happy to see some teamaction during the clanwars and if it turnes out to be bad and most viewers hate it after the season is over, there might be changes for the next one.
He means dedicated pro's though, and on any of these teams involved of course. I don't think it matters particularly if it's dedicated 2s players or simply 1v1 players playing though because the games will end up looking the same i'm sure.
On May 02 2011 22:17 nihlon wrote:
I think it's good that someone gives 2v2 an honest shot in a fairly big tournament. It's easy to say 2v2 won't bring you any good games but I've seen many top level player say they rarely play 2v2 so how can we know how far they can push it if they actually take it seriously?
Have you played or seen high level 2v2 though? There's no direction to push it in. Unless you're already with a significant advantage then you don't even really get off 1 base.
|
Its a shame its not a winners league format but i can see why organising that would cause problems with all the eu/na players, bit disapointed in a few teams missing too but nevertheless i will be tuning in and i cant wait to check out some of the 2v2's so i can actually get an opinion on whether they are good or bad in team leagues!
|
On May 02 2011 15:37 Eury wrote:
It would take a hacker about an hour to create a hack that bypass the authentication.
And this is absolutely NOT a good reason to shaft every tournament in existence...
On May 02 2011 15:44 Ultramus wrote:
Okay I'm really confused here and 100% disappointed in TL's response. EG hosts a clan league with a huge prize pool and allows TL the opportunity to participate, and TL absolutely has the right to ask for accommodations, and EG equally did no wrong declining them. The proper response here would be for TL to participate anyways, because not doing so is passing up a HUGE opportunity. This is a perfect example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. To be upset at the organizers decision is nothing short of asinine. To be offered a position and then decline it due to not having server switching is purely arrogant, there are so many other deserving teams who'd love to have the opportunity to play regardless of circumstance.
I'm very disappointed in TL's decision to abstain participation. I'm also saddened that Tyler won't get to participate because of this when he's a member of TL that doesn't have the privilege of playing in the GSL. They basically screwed him over to make a point, when there is no guarantee of them being invited next time, were I the tournament organizers I'd think twice certainly if they plan on being so fickle.
This!
And if I was a tournament organizer I think I would not even Invite Liquid, anymore. Because Not inviting generates a LOT LESS bad press, than inviting and having this kind of argument.
On May 02 2011 16:01 Xeris wrote:
What this really means is that: Blizzard needs to implement LAN latency in SC2. That would solve 100% of these problems :p
Thank you! For agreeing with me.
On May 02 2011 16:29 IdrA wrote:
playing cross server destroys game quality and makes for meaningless results. liquid tries to downplay the effects of latency to make their tournament seem more legitimate, but how many people really think all the players from korea deserved to lose as early as they did to the people they did in tsl?
expecting a foreign team league to allow that to accommodate the one team that has a significant number of players in korea is fuckin silly.
until blizzard fixes battlenet players have to choose to focus on foreign or korean events and deal with the consequences.
emphasis mine.
|
On May 02 2011 22:15 djWHEAT wrote:
If it sucks, I'm all for jumping on the OMG LAME bandwagon, but fuck man, a little variety has me very excited.
QFT.
While this was an issue in 1v1 with people like BBB.Prime and as lame as that was, it provided for great drama and an ample supply of jokes by Artosis. And even if there is a rush problem, I think there are solutions to that in terms of maps. There's no reason to not try and see how it turns out and to try to make it work.
|
wtf.
2v2s in a 10,000 dollar tournament?
|
On May 02 2011 22:16 eggs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 21:22 djWHEAT wrote: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. Wow you say that with a ton of confidence. Next time you goto the future can I hop in the DeLorean with you? I guess I'm the exact opposite. This is a nice change, and while I do expect some crazy stuff (and mostly tier 1), how can two pros going at it in a 2v2 not be interesting? it may be entertaining/interesting, but it won't be balanced/satisfying. and the tournament format forces the 2v2 game to be a deciding game. 3 1v1 BO1s followed by a 2v2 BO1? anytime it isn't 3-0, the possibility of an ACE match will depend entirely on the 2v2? why does such an untested and unbalanced bracket have such importance on the outcome of the series? i'm all for entertainment, but i was really hoping for a lot better with the SC2 Team Leagues. i'm sure this tournament will have its moments, but I really don't want to see this format or ruleset set any future standards.
You realize that if it's entertaining and interesting, many people would find that satisfying?
|
On May 02 2011 22:17 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 22:13 zul wrote:On May 02 2011 22:03 Talin wrote:On May 02 2011 21:22 djWHEAT wrote:
I guess I'm the exact opposite. This is a nice change, and while I do expect some crazy stuff (and mostly tier 1), how can two pros going at it in a 2v2 not be interesting?
...There are no dedicated 2v2 players, so each team either needs to have two pro players use up some of the practice time they have on 2v2 (and I can't imagine anyone being happy about that) - or just get 2 players in a game and have them improvise (which won't bring out the best in 2v2 games). you are just wrong. the 2v2 scene may not get that much of attention, but there are some pretty dedicated teams out there that would love to show their skill in this kind of competition. If the 1v1 pros dont like 2v2 why don`t add a 2v2 Team to the roster? I at least am happy to see some teamaction during the clanwars and if it turnes out to be bad and most viewers hate it after the season is over, there might be changes for the next one. I meant that there are no dedicated 2v2 players ON the pro teams atm, not in general. Adding dedicated 2v2 players would just not pay off for most teams, especially on contracts or anything. There's a 2v2 game in an occasional team league (this is I think only 2nd event that has it), and I'm pretty sure it won't become more standard than that. As I said, if 2v2 scene really wants to develop, it's best for it to develop on its own.
As far as strong teams having 2v2 teams... as far as I am aware only Check6 and EG have as close to dedicated 2v2 teams as you can find...
2v2 was great in wc3 because the game design balanced very well around all of the matchups .. 1v1 to 4v4. Sc2 unfortunately doesnt, high level 2v2 is well executed rushes and nothing more. Its hard to have a tech game when you can get double 4 gated, or have to deal with a double 7rrs.. the lists go on.
|
On May 02 2011 21:47 sc2olorin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 17:17 Frozenserpent 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? Well NA players suffer the most under the proposed rule change. KOR-NA latency is different from EU-NA latency and has different timings. So while KOR players just need to practice no latency and KOR-NA delay, and while EU players just need to practice no latency and EU-NA delay, NA players must split their practice between KOR-NA delay and EU-NA delay. Having to switch up between different delays can be quite troubling, while having an expected delay isn't so much. In fact, I imagine most players would fare very poorly at adjusting to 3 different timings between games (NA-NA latency, EU-NA latency, and KOR-NA latency). This can even be used to mess with player's timings in a cw. First play in a KOR-NA latency, then send in a EU player to get them to play in EU-NA latency in a short period of time. This is much worse than just playing in a set EU-NA latency or KOR-NA latency for both sets. So I don't really consider the proposed change to be completely fair, either. I'm surprised that this post was so looked over. Given that this argument can be made, it is not so cut and dry whether TL's suggestion even is the objectively fairer choice. And if that is the case, their whole stance is severely weakened, IMO.
In sports there are some basic policy and procedures no matter who is organizing the events. In soccer you have to make a changeover after 45 minutes and there is no way you can say "no, I stay here because the sun does not blind me on this side". The idea behind that is to create same conditions and they can force more pratice for certain player/teams. For the next step in sc2 as an esport someone has to make standards. Until then most tourneys will be to entertain the crowd without any pretension to be a professional sport.
I'm a bit disappointed about the european teams at this point.
|
On May 02 2011 10:08 Pirat6662001 wrote:
Confused why team Empire did not get invited. Easily would be in top 4 with presented line up.
Nerchio, Kas, Beasty, Happy as main line up with BLy and hobot to call upon is a fearsome team
and cubert + aristeo for 2on2 , the best 2on2 player of the world
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
