EPTEG launch $10,000 Master's Cup Series League - Page 41
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
drewkthx
6 Posts
| ||
|
Irrational_Animal
Germany1059 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:37 Beastyqt wrote: I agree I am unknown for most of people, reason? Because people like xeris are making invites lol (Rainbow instead 90% of other koreans good job). How many big tournaments were there and can you name me one where SAME players werent invited as always? Rainbow is Code S? He and pretty much every other Code S player that applied were excepted. Not everybody applied dude. You think some random Code A player should get in over a consistent Code S and famous BW player? | ||
|
nehcnhoj
United States213 Posts
TL, having always taken the responsibility of upholding the highest standard in this scene, would obviously view fairness of tournaments as the utmost importance. As seen by TSL3, is anybody contesting there's a fairer way of running the tournament? No, and as of present, there really issin't. EG, however, puts game quality, hype, enjoyment of the participants, as the highest level. Now this philosophy will inevitably step on some toes, But it certainly works. IdrA's points were valid, it's just not as fun watching someone from EU play someone from KR on the NA server compared to a no-lag situation. "Fun" might be the wrong word here, but the lag takes something away from the game regardless. It sucks that Blizzard/technology (the vehicle of e-sports :DD) is not at the level where these differences result in some friction. The other alternative/solution is that in time, as more money flows into the scene, team-league events become an offline affair. I'm sure there are other solutions money can buy  My personal opinion as a viewer though, is that I would certainly enjoy the presence of Liquid and any other team that might ever have a similar situation, at the cost of a small loss of quality in the few games played between the EU/KR players. I think the guy from FXO put it best earlier in the thread, this is after all, a business, | ||
|
Glad0s
United States14 Posts
| ||
|
Aristodemus
England2006 Posts
| ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On May 03 2011 08:19 nehcnhoj wrote: In regards to the TL - EG debate, I believe that really nobody is in the wrong. It's just a different set of priorities. TL, having always taken the responsibility of upholding the highest standard in this scene, would obviously view fairness of tournaments as the utmost importance. As seen by TSL3, is anybody contesting there's a fairer way of running the tournament? No, and as of present, there really issin't. EG, however, puts game quality, hype, enjoyment of the participants, as the highest level. Now this philosophy will inevitably step on some toes, But it certainly works. IdrA's points were valid, it's just not as fun watching someone from EU play someone from KR on the NA server compared to a no-lag situation. "Fun" might be the wrong word here, but the lag takes something away from the game regardless. It sucks that Blizzard/technology (the vehicle of e-sports :DD) is not at the level where these differences result in some friction. The other alternative/solution is that in time, as more money flows into the scene, team-league events become an offline affair. I'm sure there are other solutions money can buy My personal opinion as a viewer though, is that I would certainly enjoy the presence of Liquid and any other team that might ever have a similar situation, at the cost of a small loss of quality in the few games played between the EU/KR players. I think the guy from FXO put it best earlier in the thread, this is after all, a business, I think I agree with what you're saying, but the concept of 'fairness' and 'fun' is confusing. Based on Team Liquid's argument, they would rather have a tournament experience that is equally compromised/unfair for everyone, than a tournament experience that is optimal for 95% of the participants. On a tangential note, it's kind of reminds me of what's fundamentally wrong with communism. But it's worth repeating, that being 'fair' and having 'the highest standard' are not necessarily the same thing. | ||
|
Apocalyte
United States13 Posts
Pro Gamers bickering like children and clinging to the details that support their argument while ignoring the others is nothing short of embarrassing. Regardless of which side is right in my opinion; I and I'm sure MANY others are thoroughly disappointed with both parties involved. In the future, discuss matters like this like adults, in private. | ||
|
Grantiere
United States129 Posts
On May 03 2011 08:42 Defacer wrote: I think I agree with what you're saying, but the concept of 'fairness' and 'fun' is confusing. Based on Team Liquid's argument, they would rather have a tournament experience that is equally compromised/unfair for everyone, than a tournament experience that is optimal for 95% of the participants. On a tangential note, it's kind of reminds me of what's fundamentally wrong with communism. But it's worth repeating, that being 'fair' and having 'the highest standard' are not necessarily the same thing. That's possibly because you don't actually grasp the fundamental arguments on either side of this issue, or communism, or how to construct a relevant, intelligent, or logical analogy. I could be wrong though. Please explain how you compare TL asking for a level playing field with socio-political Communist ideology or practice. And then please feel free to suggest which participants in this issue on either side, or even neutral observers, would agree that your observation is an apt comparison. | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
All the drama is a fabrication of Tyler/Idra/Incontrol's design; the sole purpose of this drama is to help Idra win his SotG bet. Heard it here first. | ||
|
Highways
Australia6105 Posts
But loses alot of credibilty by not having Liquid` in it. | ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
On May 03 2011 08:42 Defacer wrote: I think I agree with what you're saying, but the concept of 'fairness' and 'fun' is confusing. Based on Team Liquid's argument, they would rather have a tournament experience that is equally compromised/unfair for everyone, than a tournament experience that is optimal for 95% of the participants. On a tangential note, it's kind of reminds me of what's fundamentally wrong with communism. But it's worth repeating, that being 'fair' and having 'the highest standard' are not necessarily the same thing. Wow.. someone is accusing TL of being communist!! who'd have thought? You'd make Joe McCarthy proud, son. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On May 03 2011 08:42 Defacer wrote: I think I agree with what you're saying, but the concept of 'fairness' and 'fun' is confusing. Based on Team Liquid's argument, they would rather have a tournament experience that is equally compromised/unfair for everyone, than a tournament experience that is optimal for 95% of the participants. On a tangential note, it's kind of reminds me of what's fundamentally wrong with communism. But it's worth repeating, that being 'fair' and having 'the highest standard' are not necessarily the same thing. You're confusing two different concepts of "fairness." You can't complain that Liquid's act of making it "fair" for everyone makes it "unfair" for everyone in the same sense of the term, that's a contradiction; the fairness that Liquid is appealing to is that of equity. The fairness you refer to is that of a higher normative standard. While everyone can generally agree on a situation where people have an even playing field, your own subjective notion of this "higher standard" that players appeal to is nothing but your own unwarranted assertion of your view as factual. IE, many many people would disagree with your idea in which course of action reaches a higher standard - to sme, inclusion of (in their opinion) one of the stronger teams could be one individual's appeal to a higher standard of tournament, another would say that fan-favorites, regardless of skill, is a higher standard for tournaments, and so on. | ||
|
StarGalaxy
Germany744 Posts
On May 03 2011 07:32 tree.hugger wrote: There's a lot of good stuff that's already been said here. But to me the most important points are: #1. NA server should not become the default server for tournaments. This is the issue brought up by Liquid' obviously. As nearly every player on these teams has accounts on the major servers, and as guest accounts can be easily provided, it only makes sense to have a fairer and more accommodating server switching layout. Sure EG is a NA organization, but since when has that hindered anybody? The whole thing feels like it was put together without any real ambition. More on that. #2. Ver and others bring up a great point. Why weren't qualifiers of some kind held for this? Running qualifiers will only bring more teams, players and fans into the fold. Everyone would love to see a round of qualifiers. Praetoriani and FXO fighting for a spot? Empire and Virus? Who wouldn't love to watch that? There are tons of teams waiting in the wings to prove their worth. Complexity has the potential to do well. Ai showed promise at Copenhagen. We all know that a true teamleague is going to have to look something like the ICCUP clan leagues in BW, with multiple tiers and a robust system of promotion and demotion. But here, for this preliminary event, why not widen the net? Supporting ESPORTS doesn't cut it anymore. I'm tired of people saying, "Well, this is overall a good thing, and we're supporting esports, so watch us." That's the theme here, and it's annoying. "Good enough" shouldn't be "good enough". We've seen events like the TSL set a high bar in organization and delivery, and we've seen events like ScReddit and IGN set a high bar in production effects. And then events like this make no effort to even reach that bar. That's not the point of setting an example. The NASL is belatedly realizing this. Prize pool isn't everything. Big names aren't everything. I'm always annoyed when people criticize other people who are trying hard, but I dunno, this whole event hasn't really been handled in a way that really distinguishes it, and it should be. I think that's a very good summary, you can't say it more clearly. We can only hope that the organizers of the league take this constructive criticism to heart. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
how this all comes across to me is that EG seems to take the stand, in everything its players seem to be involved in organising, is that being american is a big part of who they are. nasl is NA favoured in more than just name, masters cup and gcpl pushing for the na server being the "standard" at the end of the day gives US players advantages. whether this has ever been intentional in terms of "helping" american players i dont know, its just the perception that comes across. but atleast from the opinions expressed in the thread by different people there seems to be this idea that if a tourney is organised by people who live in the united states, US players are suddenly the "home team" like other sports, and deserve an advantage, like the one perceived to exist in other sports for the home team. i would of thought the organisers main objective is to get the best games possible, not to "take sides" to assist US players. what seems to be the standard for map choice, is predetermined first map, then loser picks. why cant we extend this server choice. either play NA first, or coin flip, then play on the losers server. | ||
|
InteGrated
United States259 Posts
This is the guy in charge of selecting the invites for NASL? no wonder. so much bias and ignorance written in that, no wonder Europeans hate us Americans. | ||
|
The Final Boss
United States1839 Posts
I'm just wondering, especially about Mouz, because I love Strelok's play and I would really enjoy watching some 2v2 out of him, but at the same time I figure that if he can only play 1v1 Mouz would probably place him there. What do I know though, haha. Looks great EG! | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
This is the same thing that happened when Kas 3-0d NaDa. EU people were outraged their player was dismissed by SotG. I couldn't understand it as well. I mean, if you like starcraft, if you follow the scene, if you do a goddamn podcast about SC2's state, you know that Kas is a godly TvT player, and has been crushing tourneys for a while. At the same time, you know that Happy as of late, has had an impressively fast scale on ladder, beating nerds left and right, and you also know that nerchio is the one he keeps facing on weekly cup late stages. I fail to understand how can Xeris base his judgement on Empire players by their sole performance on GCPL. It sounds like he's not informed, not watching, and not reading enough about the scene he's promoting. And I'm not even european, I just like SC2, I follow the scene, know some trends, and it's been completely effortless, how can the people INSIDE the scene NOT KNOW such obvious things? It's REALLY strange. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On May 03 2011 08:42 Defacer wrote: Based on Team Liquid's argument, they would rather have a tournament experience that is equally compromised/unfair for everyone, than a tournament experience that is optimal for 95% of the participants. Actually I think TL's solution would be optimal to Europeans as well, especially as Nani indicated the lag issues between EU and NA aren't really insignificant. I mean as Jinro said, it's not like any European team will complain about playing half the games on their own server (and I'm pretty sure they would all prefer that). But even if that wasn't the case, I believe there are no percentages when it comes to fairness. IMO, a tournament that is fair to 90% of the participants but unfair to 10% is an unfair tournament, period. It's obvious that EG wanted to go for a more global than NA-exclusive event - hence the TL, dignitas, mouz and MYM invites. They take advantage of having such big name teams in the league, but at the same time refuse to make the rules and format equally fair to everyone. NASL suffers from the same problem really. There is no reason to have online competitions be server exclusive. | ||
|
hinnolinn
212 Posts
If player A is US, and player B is KR, and when they play on the US server A has 250 latency and B has 450 latency, but when they play on the KR server player B has 300 latency and player A has 600 latency, wouldn't it be more fair to play all the games on the server where the latency difference is only 200, as opposed to playing some games on the server with a 300 latency difference? That is just an example with numbers pulled out of nowhere. I don't know which server is best for each continental match-up, but playing all match-ups on the same server that reduces the difference in latency would be the most objectively fair it seems. | ||
| ||
