|
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?
No one is complaining about the teams invited? Read the actual posts, the discussion is about how teams have to keep their rosters the same throughout the entire TI process so that they don't lose their invite and then speculating how that is the reason for the massive post TI team shuffle
|
Well, you are incorrect, shuffling happens in every sport after the end of the season. Even if you'd changed the system to qualified teams and allowed roster swaps, it wouldn't stop massive reshuffle after each TI, based on its results. Instead we would've gotten half-assed teams at the actual event, where players still trying to mech with each other and find chemistry as a result of constant reshuffling.
|
On August 16 2013 10:38 icystorage 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. 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
Pretty sure valve is trying to protect to the players here. How would you feel if the team you played support for the last 8 months kicks you off the team after getting a TI3 invite for some other "superstar" support. Valve is trying to protect the player from the organization.
|
On August 16 2013 10:50 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Ah I get it now. Yeah, what you say makes a bit of sense, trying to give teams a bit more of an incentive to stick together over the long term without locking them in. I like the idea, its just that the execution is troublesome. Again it goes to questions like which tourneys to give qualifying slots, etc.
Also, if you really think about it, aside from the fact that teams have to constantly worry about the "threshold of good tournament results", the current system is pretty much an unofficial version of the idea you propose. Just with less clear cut guiding principles/transparency.
|
On August 16 2013 11:26 pdd wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 10:50 Judicator wrote: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. Ah I get it now. Yeah, what you say makes a bit of sense, trying to give teams a bit more of an incentive to stick together over the long term without locking them in. I like the idea, its just that the execution is troublesome. Again it goes to questions like which tourneys to give qualifying slots, etc. Also, if you really think about it, aside from the fact that teams have to constantly worry about the "threshold of good tournament results", the current system is pretty much an unofficial version of the idea you propose. Just with less clear cut guiding principles/transparency.
Which is the problem that players are still left guessing what causes them to earn and lose an invite. I mean even in LGD.cn's case its like even they were sure if it would trigger response from Valve and to what degree. Sure Valve responded pretty quickly and it was sorted out, but it still doesn't change the fact that people are still like umm what happens now?
If there's a more clear system, teams might be more inclined to figure out what works before we get put into that we are only putting up with each other because we have to for a chance of a chance to win TI3.
|
On August 16 2013 08:00 iNteLStyLe wrote:
Why are people still talking about Astana Dragons
the thing is the guy who everyone expects to be behind AD(Arbalet - Murat Zhumashevich) was Navi's sponsor until the end of 2011.
So in case of poaching Navi dota squad there is probably more than just money involved.
|
Aui_2000 to Kaipi, EE back to support?
|
On August 16 2013 12:59 ch33psh33p wrote:
Aui_2000 to Kaipi, EE back to support?
sauce?
|
On August 16 2013 13:16 Bashnek wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 12:59 ch33psh33p wrote:
Aui_2000 to Kaipi, EE back to support? sauce?
his speculating from Aui's stream
|
Wait, I thought aui wanted to take Dota seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 16 2013 13:25 LuckoftheIrish wrote:
Wait, I thought aui wanted to take Dota seriously.
so what would be wrong with joining up with two of the biggest tryhards in the scene?
|
On August 16 2013 13:25 LuckoftheIrish wrote:
Wait, I thought aui wanted to take Dota seriously.
Well Kapi actually had more results than Dignitas in recent months (bar Dignitas' ti3 run)
|
No way, it's gonna be EE joining dignitas to replace hontrash with another hontrash
|
just wondering, are ppl still saying hontrash with actual emphasis on hontrash or just calling ppl coming from hon hontrash without meaning "hontrash"
|
On August 16 2013 13:39 hyptonic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 13:25 LuckoftheIrish wrote:
Wait, I thought aui wanted to take Dota seriously. so what would be wrong with joining up with two of the biggest tryhards in the scene?
That was actually just an unjustified dig at Kaipi.
|
On August 16 2013 13:45 LuckoftheIrish wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 13:39 hyptonic wrote:On August 16 2013 13:25 LuckoftheIrish wrote:
Wait, I thought aui wanted to take Dota seriously. so what would be wrong with joining up with two of the biggest tryhards in the scene? That was actually just an unjustified dig at Kaipi.
EE and sing are tryhards. it is known.
|
On August 16 2013 13:44 teddyoojo wrote:
just wondering, are ppl still saying hontrash with actual emphasis on hontrash or just calling ppl coming from hon hontrash without meaning "hontrash"
i don't think hontrash holds any meaning
|
On August 16 2013 13:45 LuckoftheIrish wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2013 13:39 hyptonic wrote:On August 16 2013 13:25 LuckoftheIrish wrote:
Wait, I thought aui wanted to take Dota seriously. so what would be wrong with joining up with two of the biggest tryhards in the scene? That was actually just an unjustified dig at Kaipi.
it was actually meant as a complement trying to refute his point...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
