|
On August 16 2013 09:33 andyrau wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 09:14 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2013 09:10 hyptonic wrote:
People are acting like teams are being impulsive changing rosters right after TI3.
The problems/reasons that exist for these teams wanting change most likely have existed for quite some time but they simply did not want to change in order to keep their TI3/qualifier invite This is why the invite system for so many teams seems so bad. Why not just invite the top 4 of the previous year's TI and then make everyone else qualify during the in between times through sanctioned qualifiers? Like even asking D2L, the Defense, Starladder, GEST, etc. should help the scene grow. a. pretty sure icefrog already takes those tournament results into consideration before making invites, hence the mufc & lgdint invs b. some teams break up after a deep International run, ala ehome c. some teams don't remain as dominant as they were in the prior TIs, ala iG (admittedly, they are still far and away good enough to receive an invite anyhow). Maybe teams like MYM or Scythe can fall into this category although they fall into category b as well.
Well aware of the criteria, but I hate the notion that teams have to be forced together on the premise of keeping their invite. If a team wins an earlier qualifier, they are in, they can focus on the TI preparations and not have to piddle around in the "did I do enough to justify an invite" category. The top teams can work out their kinks.
Part B, that's fine, the invites are owned by the teams anyways (they have always been and there's been multiple precedence), or alternatively, you can move the invites down the line to the 5th team. Then make the reforming team re-qualify.
Part C, then why the hell are they at the TI? If you can't win a qualifier, then why would you be invited to the TI? Keep in mind I am not referring to 4 qualifiers, there were how many teams at TI? And if there were only 4 teams being guaranteed a spot, how many qualifiers are we talking about?
The system that I just proposed on a whim eliminates the inherent retardedness that is TI prize structure where Burning himself has expressed that even someone in a position like he's in is vying for a single prize pool on a yearly basis. How the hell is that healthy for the scene or the players?
But most importantly, it establishes very clearly when the roster lock goes into effect, after you qualify and during the qualifier tournaments. Right now its like, okay when can I change players or if at all, if I change at the beginning when does Icefrog start caring about my roster.
On August 16 2013 09:53 pdd wrote:
Valve does take into consideration achievements over the year and team stability/activeness when deciding who gets invited. Performances at tournaments over the year/season are thus very important.
The trouble with making certain events count as qualifiers, is how do you justify which events act as qualifiers, and even if a team wins an "qualifying" event, how certain are you that they'll keep running as the same 5 men by the time the next comes. If you go by a year round point system, the same issue still kinda applies (and now you've gotta think about whether the points carry forward with a new team). Then you gotta ask how will events be weighted, what if some teams can't attend many events, etc etc.
I foresee that as time goes by there'll be less and less invites and more qualifiers(off of Valve's own TI qualifiers) for the subsequent year TIs, or perhaps an expansion of The International to more than 16 teams.
Valve can try running the LCS/WCS model, but there are costs involved and even the WCS model has been inefficiently run. Slasher of Gamespot asked a lot of the casters and players regarding their views on Valve's TI model, and most of them agreed that it was the best for now.
Good points and I addressed some, but most of the major tournaments have an offline finals. Its been three TIs now, I am pretty sure we can kind of point to the more prominent ones. Obviously there would have to be some requirements to which ones count and which ones don't, but that's up to Icefrog and the dev team. If nothing else, players have a very clear map on what it actually takes to get into a TI, because every year now, there's been some drama come invite time.
For the college football(american) and basketball watchers, you guys should recognize the shortcomings of the current system.
If they're going to expand TI, then they're going to run into the same issues are they are for this proposed system. Like I said, I just suggested that this could be an alternative, not necessarily the right one. Figuring out some basic rules for player transactions is something only Valve can do and I hope they do it so you don't get teams being poached into oblivion and what not.
|
On August 16 2013 08:36 renfree wrote:
Bulba, you have done it again! Anyway, BurNIng ain't leaving DK for anything, his personal relations with team's management/owner is too close. And TI3 Chinese teams needs a reshuffle draft- and strategy wise, not players. Players were fine if some a bit rusty, strategy wasn't.
About Na`Vi - Puppey also wanted to get rid of XBOCT when they were shuffling, but ZG was too against it, so they gave it a try. They were on a 2-month schedule of how this new lineup would work out and if it didn't, they would've changed again. Now, when the tension and old arguments arise again, i don't see them staying together unless Puppey puts money before everything.
dude, what did i do, i just said what i was told. the burning thing wasn't really confirmed. it was just a possibility. however, xiao8 looked mega depressed. lgd's manager nic also said that IG is probably going to vie to get burning as welll
|
On August 16 2013 08:12 Shaella wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 08:11 Dodgin wrote:On August 16 2013 08:09 Shaella wrote:On August 16 2013 08:07 Dodgin wrote:
Why would anyone leave Alliance when they're salaried the best of any western team in dota? seems incredibly stupid because there's personal issues personal issues that bad that you would give up all the perks of the EG organization? i mean please by all means enlighten me but everything I read(from not random forum people) so far is saying alliance won't make any player changes. things happen as for personal issues that people would give up the perks of EG over? Bulba.
He got booted, he didn't give up anything.
|
While I agree with you on the fact that The International's format (and the Dota 2 competitive scene) needs further growth and improvement, just for the sake of discussion:
Well aware of the criteria, but I hate the notion that teams have to be forced together on the premise of keeping their invite. If a team wins an earlier qualifier, they are in, they can focus on the TI preparations and not have to piddle around in the "did I do enough to justify an invite" category. The top teams can work out their kinks.
I don't agree with this sort of thing. A team which dominates say late 2013/early 2014 and wins lots of tourney can end up having massive internal issues which force the team apart. Two issues then arise:
1. If the team stays together, can they keep up their performance even with the internal issues? There was a very telling interview with MouzBlack recently (I believe a Gosugamers one). Despite the fact that Mouz had won a clear qualification to TI3, there were still disagreements with commitments and how to play the game. It happened with mTw the year before as well. Even with qualifiers only two or so months before TIs teams can break down internally, think about the implications of a qualifying event 6 or more months out from The International. Are you really going to force teams to suck it up for the better part of the year?
2. If a team breaks up and in the very unfortunate scenario where 1 player leaves to another team and the other 4 are split into 2 pairs (see: Team Empire). How on earth do you split the invite? Do you give it to the organisation? What if they weren't sponsored and were running independently? Valve have said time and time again that they invite the player rather than the team, so it's very unlikely they're giving it to the organisation. LGD lost their invite and had to requalify because of this very reason.
Part B, that's fine, the invites are owned by the teams anyways (they have always been and there's been multiple precedence), or alternatively, you can move the invites down the line to the 5th team. Then make the reforming team re-qualify.
Valve have said teams don't own the invite. It belongs to the players. But your idea works, Top 4 (assuming they're stable and haven't really changed their rosters much) keep their invites. If they've changed too much, move it down to next stable team.
Ultimately, it's a very difficult with invites, but I think as the scene grows, Valve will have to reduce the number of invites and increase the number of teams qualifying. The thing is if Valve wants a legitimate qualification system unmarred by issues such as ping, they have to pump a bit of money into the scene (to host LANs and have teams fly in), which is not the model they're going for. Watch Slasher's Gamespot interviews with Maelk, Aui, 1437 and many others. You'll understand the issues and the comparison with SC2 and LoL's scene better.
|
On August 16 2013 10:07 Liquid`BuLba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 08:36 renfree wrote:
Bulba, you have done it again! Anyway, BurNIng ain't leaving DK for anything, his personal relations with team's management/owner is too close. And TI3 Chinese teams needs a reshuffle draft- and strategy wise, not players. Players were fine if some a bit rusty, strategy wasn't.
About Na`Vi - Puppey also wanted to get rid of XBOCT when they were shuffling, but ZG was too against it, so they gave it a try. They were on a 2-month schedule of how this new lineup would work out and if it didn't, they would've changed again. Now, when the tension and old arguments arise again, i don't see them staying together unless Puppey puts money before everything. dude, what did i do, i just said what i was told. the burning thing wasn't really confirmed. it was just a possibility. however, xiao8 looked mega depressed. lgd's manager nic also said that IG is probably going to vie to get burning as welll
Mali makes it sound like Burning's not interested at all; it's either retirement or DK. Did LGD already make an offer + got declined (which is why Mali phrased his statement as "fact"), or what?
|
I really don't know why Valve takes away invites/dislikes teams that change rosters.
Are they trying to force "stability" by making teams play with each other when they don't want to?
And obviously a team wouldn't make a change unless they deem it for the better.
People always trying to argue the whole being a real sport thing but they seem to ignore things that have been in gaming for a long time but have never been in real sports. It's a reality that if someone is seen as unfit they are removed.
|
On August 16 2013 10:34 hyptonic wrote:
I really don't know why Valve takes away invites/dislikes teams that change rosters.
Are they trying to force "stability" by making teams play with each other when they don't want to?
And obviously a team wouldn't make a change unless they deem it for the better.
People always trying to argue the whole being a real sport thing but they seem to ignore things that have been in gaming for a long time but have never been in real sports. It's a reality that if someone is seen as unfit they are removed.
imagine EG doesnt get invited in the qualifiers and QPAD gets in the quals. if valve allows roster change, QPAD could just release their 'bad' players and get some EG players to make their team stronger.
that's just my opinion tho
|
^ Definitely. If a team kicks one member out they're essentially the same. Valve need to change their approach to those sort of changes. That whole LGD issue was really stupid.
The only argument Valve can really make is where teams change two or more members of their roster, in which case they still need to assess it objectively whether it changes the team significantly.
|
On August 16 2013 10:34 hyptonic wrote:
I really don't know why Valve takes away invites/dislikes teams that change rosters.
Are they trying to force "stability" by making teams play with each other when they don't want to?
And obviously a team wouldn't make a change unless they deem it for the better.
People always trying to argue the whole being a real sport thing but they seem to ignore things that have been in gaming for a long time but have never been in real sports. It's a reality that if someone is seen as unfit they are removed.
My guess is it is to stop a "all-star" lineup switch like 3 weeks before TI.. if there was no punishment for team changing, what if say EG (if they made it in, but using for example cause we know they have money to buy contracts of anyone) dropped their whole team and bought out Burning, Mushi, Funnik, Chaun and Net.. ruining ~4 other teams while giving them an almost guaranteed chance to win the 1.5 million. Players want money, so they would do it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On August 16 2013 10:42 SnowfaLL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 10:34 hyptonic wrote:
I really don't know why Valve takes away invites/dislikes teams that change rosters.
Are they trying to force "stability" by making teams play with each other when they don't want to?
And obviously a team wouldn't make a change unless they deem it for the better.
People always trying to argue the whole being a real sport thing but they seem to ignore things that have been in gaming for a long time but have never been in real sports. It's a reality that if someone is seen as unfit they are removed. My guess is it is to stop a "all-star" lineup switch like 3 weeks before TI.. if there was no punishment for team changing, what if say EG (if they made it in, but using for example cause we know they have money to buy contracts of anyone) dropped their whole team and bought out Burning, Mushi, Funnik, Chaun and Net.. ruining ~4 other teams while giving them an almost guaranteed chance to win the 1.5 million. Players want money, so they would do it.
Dude, they wouldnt win anything.
|
On August 16 2013 10:41 pdd wrote:
^ Definitely. If a team kicks one member out they're essentially the same. Valve need to change their approach to those sort of changes. That whole LGD issue was really stupid.
The only argument Valve can really make is where teams change two or more members of their roster, in which case they still need to access it objectively whether it changes the team significantly.
What if it was you, who helped your team qualify for the International, then got kicked because of internal conflicts just before the biggest Esports tourney in the world?
|
On August 16 2013 10:41 pdd wrote:
^ Definitely. If a team kicks one member out they're essentially the same. Valve need to change their approach to those sort of changes. That whole LGD issue was really stupid.
The only argument Valve can really make is where teams change two or more members of their roster, in which case they still need to assess it objectively whether it changes the team significantly.
So you're saying if Na'vi kicked out Puppey or dendi they will be the same?
Edit: changing rosters even if its one does have a huge difference or are you forgetting alliance before and after EE?
Even lgd had a horrible while when they changed roster remember that game vs vg?
|
Ah that makes sense.
Valve just needs to find a golden mean.
These two extremes obviously won't work, but if they publicly set a limit like one change for example perhaps it would entice teams to make that change.
I still think Valve approving changes internally and privately is the way to go
|
On August 16 2013 10:24 pdd wrote:+ Show Spoiler +While I agree with you on the fact that The International's format (and the Dota 2 competitive scene) needs further growth and improvement, just for the sake of discussion: Well aware of the criteria, but I hate the notion that teams have to be forced together on the premise of keeping their invite. If a team wins an earlier qualifier, they are in, they can focus on the TI preparations and not have to piddle around in the "did I do enough to justify an invite" category. The top teams can work out their kinks. I don't agree with this sort of thing. A team which dominates say late 2013/early 2014 and wins lots of tourney can end up having massive internal issues which force the team apart. Two issues then arise: 1. If the team stays together, can they keep up their performance even with the internal issues? There was a very telling interview with MouzBlack recently (I believe a Gosugamers one). Despite the fact that Mouz had won a clear qualification to TI3, there were still disagreements with commitments and how to play the game. It happened with mTw the year before as well. Even with qualifiers only two or so months before TIs teams can break down internally, think about the implications of a qualifying event 6 or more months out from The International. Are you really going to force teams to suck it up for the better part of the year? 2. If a team breaks up and in the very unfortunate scenario where 1 player leaves to another team and the other 4 are split into 2 pairs (see: Team Empire). How on earth do you split the invite? Do you give it to the organisation? What if they weren't sponsored and were running independently? Valve have said time and time again that they invite the player rather than the team, so it's very unlikely they're giving it to the organisation. LGD lost their invite and had to requalify because of this very reason. Part B, that's fine, the invites are owned by the teams anyways (they have always been and there's been multiple precedence), or alternatively, you can move the invites down the line to the 5th team. Then make the reforming team re-qualify. Valve have said teams don't own the invite. It belongs to the players. But your idea works, Top 4 (assuming they're stable and haven't really changed their rosters much) keep their invites. If they've changed too much, move it down to next stable team. Ultimately, it's a very difficult with invites, but I think as the scene grows, Valve will have to reduce the number of invites and increase the number of teams qualifying. The thing is if Valve wants a legitimate qualification system unmarred by issues such as ping, they have to pump a bit of money into the scene (to host LANs and have teams fly in), which is not the model they're going for. Watch Slasher's Gamespot interviews with Maelk, Aui, 1437 and many others. You'll understand the issues and the comparison with SC2 and LoL's scene better.
You are kind of missing my bigger point a little. The point of a system like this (again I re-emphasize that this is very basic system with little details) is to establish standards and guidelines that the players in the system knows about. Like in the situation you describe, it is very simple to establish the rule that once you are qualified, you are roster-locked so there's no gray area like there is now, aka how far ahead do I need to make roster changes before it becomes an issue.
If you fail that aspect, then you lose it and likewise it is very easy for Valve to pass that invite on to the team you beat in the finals of that tournament and subsequent teams after that if needed. This allows a very clear transfer of the TI invite, encourages the top teams to stay together during the qualifying season but not necessarily locking them together for subsequent qualifiers, and allows qualified teams to not have to worry about if they have crossed the threshold of "tournament results". If teams do get shuffled around during qualifying season, then they have very clear points of re-entry into the TI. So if because of personal differences a previously qualified team breaks up, then the reformed teams can try for the remaining qualifiers. This would allow teams who broke up early to get more chances, and subsequently punish (rightfully so) teams that break up later for less chances of qualifying.
Again, not saying its a perfect system or anything by any means, but just a discussion point more than anything.
|
On August 16 2013 10:41 pdd wrote:
^ Definitely. If a team kicks one member out they're essentially the same. Valve need to change their approach to those sort of changes. That whole LGD issue was really stupid.
The only argument Valve can really make is where teams change two or more members of their roster, in which case they still need to assess it objectively whether it changes the team significantly.
The reason why any team would get the invite to begin with is because all 5 of them worked hard to get there, not just 4 + any random joe. This ensures that players don't just get backstabbed on hindsight just because some internal issues arise all of a sudden.
|
On August 16 2013 10:49 PotatoFury wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 10:41 pdd wrote:
^ Definitely. If a team kicks one member out they're essentially the same. Valve need to change their approach to those sort of changes. That whole LGD issue was really stupid.
The only argument Valve can really make is where teams change two or more members of their roster, in which case they still need to assess it objectively whether it changes the team significantly. So you're saying if Na'vi kicked out Puppey or dendi they will be the same?
Realistically if they swapped those players out for a player at a similar skill level playing the same position, then yes.
Obviously some signature heroes would change, but overall the team would be the same.
Thinking of the 2 and 4 they'd lose out on what? Pudge?
The team would still be xbox funnik kuro puppy + s4 for example
|
Why are you arguing over invites again? Weren't you happy with the current invites, which team bar MUFC didn't deserve to be there?
|
+ Show Spoiler +Artstyle + 4 for Astana Dragons Сообщаем, что Иван @ArtStylee Антонов становится первым игроком нашего состава! Остальные игроки будут анонсированы совсем скоро! Ждите!
To announce that Ivan Antonov @ ArtStylee becomes the first player of our composition! The remaining players will be announced very soon! Wait! http://twitter.com/astanadragonsThey earlier said: We are glad to present to you our version of the alphabet - ABDSV  So probably ArtStyle, BlowYourBrain, Dread, Scandal, Vanksor? Epic team.
Edit: Apparently fake twitter?
|
On August 16 2013 11:02 renfree wrote:
Why are you arguing over invites again? Weren't you happy with the current invites, which team bar MUFC didn't deserve to be there?
Because in case you haven't noticed, the invite system is a direct cause of what is going on right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
