|
On May 03 2011 10:28 hinnolinn wrote:
Again, a full page of people saying that TL is asking for the most fair solution. How is switching servers for each game a more fair solution then playing on the server with the smallest difference in latency?
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.
Because this way, it's the same player getting the disadvantage every game, and thus, playing handicapped. The way the TSL works, it spreads the pain amongst both players in the most equitative way possible.
|
That's true, it would split the pain, but it doesn't split it equitably. So I don't see how you can call it more fair then a solution that reduces the pain to the most minimal.
|
On May 03 2011 10:33 hinnolinn wrote:
That's true, it would split the pain, but it doesn't split it equitably. So I don't see how you can call it more fair then a solution that reduces the pain to the most minimal.
Let's say I play 3 chess matches starting off without 2 pawns. Now that's horribly unfair. Let's say that in a different situation we play 3 different matches, first one I start with 4 pawns less and you with only 2 less. Then you start off with 3 pawns and a knight less, and I start without 3 pawns. Then we flip a coin, and start in any of those situations, purely luck based.
It seems to me the second situation is less unfair, because in only one game I will be coming from behind. In the first situation, I will start with a disadvantage in ALL 3 games, making it terrible.
|
On May 03 2011 10:28 hinnolinn wrote:
Again, a full page of people saying that TL is asking for the most fair solution. How is switching servers for each game a more fair solution then playing on the server with the smallest difference in latency?
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.
Your numbers are, as you admit, made up, and prove nothing, especially not the point you're intending to make. It's not unfair in any possible or conceivable way to switch servers. The only reason it's even remotely troubling is because some of the NA teams would have to practice on KR server before playing TL. That's it. For EU-KR and EU-NA it's considerably more fair or just plain identical to the way it was before.
|
To run with your analogy:
In the first situation, all 3 games have a pain of 2 pawns.
In the second situation, one game has a pain of 2 pawns, and one game has a pain of 1 knight.
Since on wikipedia a knight has a relative value of 3 and a pawn a value of 1, there is more pain in being a knight down then 2 pawns. So there is more pain in the second game of the second set then in the second game of the first set. and then if you flip a coin there is a chance for another 3 pain vs another 2 pain.
So the second set of matches is at least more total pain then the first set and so I would say less fair overall.
My point is that being only 2 pawns down you have a better chance of winning then the player that is a knight down, just value wise. This doesn't take into account player skill at all, and so would be most objectively fair to play all games with the players having the best chance to win.
|
Read about half the thread and the EG decision to me seams like a absolute joke, if the event streams the games after they've played then what more is it than a player having to log out 2-3 times during a set? the price of having fair games seams insignificant to me and for eg to flat out refuse is very very unprofessional
|
On May 03 2011 10:40 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 10:28 hinnolinn wrote:
Again, a full page of people saying that TL is asking for the most fair solution. How is switching servers for each game a more fair solution then playing on the server with the smallest difference in latency?
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. Your numbers are, as you admit, made up, and prove nothing, especially not the point you're intending to make. It's not unfair in any possible or conceivable way to switch servers. The only reason it's even remotely troubling is because some of the NA teams would have to practice on KR server before playing TL. That's it. For EU-KR and EU-NA it's considerably more fair or just plain identical to the way it was before.
I would refer you to the way that EU-KR games are played on the NA server. This is because when an EU player plays on the KR server they have no chance to win, and when the KR player plays on the EU server they have no chance. So they play on a server that gives both players the closest odds. This is exactly like what I am proposing.
Edit: I am not stating that NA players have no chance on KR, I am advocating the most even games for all games. And if that means the KR server for all games, I am advocating that as the most fair place to play all the NA-KR games.
|
On May 02 2011 10:04 zyglrox wrote:
2v2s...interesting O_o axslav gonna rape!
Exactly my thoughts. Axslav is one of my favorite members of EG :D
|
Sixjax, Millenium, and MYM...
sub them for FXO, EMPIRE, and LIQUID
that would be epic, for now its just blah....
|
@hinnolinn
u know that the TL solution ist the optimal one, right?
(and if i understand u right u say that the KR-NA delay is different to the NA-KR delay? u sure about that?^^)
quote from jinro:
We wanted KR/NA games to be played 50% KR 50% NA, EU/NA games 50% EU 50% NA and KR/EU games 100% NA.
We offered to provide accounts, we have around 30 accounts total across the 3 servers, but were told no.
...
Theres relocalization tools, we would be providing all the accounts, what exactly is the inconvenience?
...
|
I don't think splitting the match-ups 50/50 on Us/KR is fair. It works fine in the TSL which is a 1v1 league but this a team league where that could very well be used to the advantage of Liquid. I don't think its the tournaments responsibility to accommodate players, the players know what they are getting into and if they don't like it they should just not play. People keep bringing up the NASL and the Korean players but they knew it would be at bad times and a different server and they still decided to play so it's their fault if they don't like the conditions not the NASL's.
|
Epic league, epic format, major props to EG for trying something different. Will be hilarious to watch pros cobble together some 2v2 strats, can't wait.
On the dramabomb, EG's decision sounds fairly reasonable. I guess I respect Liquid for standing up for their players, but asking seven other teams to kneecap themselves for one team, who made a conscious decision to have some of their players in Korea, seems pretty out of line. You don't get to make demands of other peoples' tournaments, and arguing that you do makes you seem a little...self righteous.
|
Edit: FFS wrong tourny thread.
|
@OrbitalPlane
I am asking for good reasons why that is more fair then the solution I proposed. What you just posted is, "it is more fair because Jinro said so."
I am not saying he's wrong, as he might very well be right, I am just hoping that people will at least think about this and perhaps somebody will have a reason that convinces me, but if not, as I might just be a stubborn ass, I don't set any rules for any league so my opinion in the end is just that.
And I'm not saying that the difference in latency for players is different between the NA and KR servers(though I suspect it is, just not to a major extent), but if it is, I'm advocating playing on the server with the smallest difference between players.
|
On May 03 2011 09:43 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 08:42 Defacer wrote: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. 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.
Good point.
Team Liquid wants equity to participate. This cannot happen without compromising by playing on multiple servers. Can anyone argue that this is not a compromise? Of course not.
If latency wasn't an issue, TL wouldn't require multiple servers to participate. The reality is that it is a huge issue that impacts gameplay, which as IdrA intimated, TL tried to downplay during the TSL.
EG wants the most optimum conditions for the majority of participants. Does anyone seriously think that's unreasonable? I agree, whether this constitutes 'a higher standard' for a tournament depends on what criteria your judging a tournament on.
Bear in mind that I'm responding directly to Tyler's original, rather arrogant assertation that TL aspires to a higher standard for their tournaments than EG. If I were EG, I would find that pretty insulting. Playing on multiple servers is not adhering to 'a higher standard'. It's simply a necessary compromise for the sake of equity, in a global tournament such as TSL. EG's compromise is host games only on the NA server, even if it means the exclusion of some teams.
I don't think either compromise is illogical or unreasonable. It's just reality right now.
Hopefully, e-sports will blow up to the point that entire teams could fly into a LAN and play a tournament over the course of a month. But not even GSL does that.
PS: I'm not accusing anyone of being a communist. I just think this notion of higher standards is funny, and in the eye of the beholder. "Let's make everyone suffer equally so that no one is left out!" Oh yeah, that's a 'better' solution.
Honestly, the solution to the problem isn't for every tournament to cater to every team. The solution is for teams like TL and EG -- that want an international presence -- to expand their rosters and have Asian, European and North American teams. This way, individual members can enjoy the true benefits of being on a team, other than having a sponsor.
When EG was sponsoring IdrA for example, you could tell that even though he was talented, he really wasn't getting the 'soft' benefits of being on a team.
You could say the same about Tyler now. Right now he's a island. So it must sting to not be able to participate in a tournament like this.
|
|
|
@hinnolinn
why this is more fair?
1. it's the optimal solution for having the least lagg
2. the lagg is split equally
What EG decided:
same amount of lagg but KR and EU have to suffer
NA plays without lagg and takes the whole benefit
|
TL should just sign another NA/EU player. It's roster is pretty light anyway. Plus we all like more liquid players.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 03 2011 11:06 KillaRM wrote:
I don't think splitting the match-ups 50/50 on Us/KR is fair. It works fine in the TSL which is a 1v1 league but this a team league where that could very well be used to the advantage of Liquid. I don't think its the tournaments responsibility to accommodate players, the players know what they are getting into and if they don't like it they should just not play. People keep bringing up the NASL and the Korean players but they knew it would be at bad times and a different server and they still decided to play so it's their fault if they don't like the conditions not the NASL's.
I dont understand how on EARTH it can work to our advantage, unless by advantage you mean "not handicapped".
On May 03 2011 11:09 Sephimos wrote:
Epic league, epic format, major props to EG for trying something different. Will be hilarious to watch pros cobble together some 2v2 strats, can't wait.
On the dramabomb, EG's decision sounds fairly reasonable. I guess I respect Liquid for standing up for their players, but asking seven other teams to kneecap themselves for one team, who made a conscious decision to have some of their players in Korea, seems pretty out of line. You don't get to make demands of other peoples' tournaments, and arguing that you do makes you seem a little...self righteous.
We want equal playing conditions and thats self-righteous?
|
On May 03 2011 12:04 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 11:06 KillaRM wrote:
I don't think splitting the match-ups 50/50 on Us/KR is fair. It works fine in the TSL which is a 1v1 league but this a team league where that could very well be used to the advantage of Liquid. I don't think its the tournaments responsibility to accommodate players, the players know what they are getting into and if they don't like it they should just not play. People keep bringing up the NASL and the Korean players but they knew it would be at bad times and a different server and they still decided to play so it's their fault if they don't like the conditions not the NASL's. I dont understand how on EARTH it can work to our advantage, unless by advantage you mean "not handicapped". Show nested quote +On May 03 2011 11:09 Sephimos wrote:
Epic league, epic format, major props to EG for trying something different. Will be hilarious to watch pros cobble together some 2v2 strats, can't wait.
On the dramabomb, EG's decision sounds fairly reasonable. I guess I respect Liquid for standing up for their players, but asking seven other teams to kneecap themselves for one team, who made a conscious decision to have some of their players in Korea, seems pretty out of line. You don't get to make demands of other peoples' tournaments, and arguing that you do makes you seem a little...self righteous. We want equal playing conditions and thats self-righteous?
Liquid made a decision to keep some of their bigger names in Korea. You, HuK, and Haypro weren't kidnapped and whisked off to the Korean peninsula. It's been obvious for quite some time that there would be significant compartmentalization of competition since Blizzard has broken different regions up. If Liquid's going to keep people in Korea, it can't moan (cry and slur in Tyler's case) at everyone else for rules that happen to be bad for people in Korea. Any other argument turns into "we're Team Liquid, we deserve special breaks and accommodations, even though we've made a conscious business decision."
I get that you want the best conditions, but I think you have to realize that until Blizzard gets its shit together, there are going to be prices for being in Korea. IdrA can't compete in GSL since he left Korea, and I don't hear him complaining that he isn't being catered to by GSL becoming an online tournament playable from NA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
