On April 27 2016 18:37 Racket wrote: To begin with, having a Major with a different patch, and issuing invites based on the previous patch is the most dumb move to do.
Second, people talk about consistency of teams and the only team that could not be argued about is EG, in the span of a year EG ended: 2nd, 2nd, 5-6th, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 5-8th, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 2nd Secret ended: 7-8th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 5-6th, 7-8th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 9-12th, 5-6th, 7-8th, 1st, 5-8th, 5-6th Liquid ended: 4th, 1st, 1st, 5-6th, 3rd, 3-4th, 5-6th, 2nd, 2nd (they are still not a year old)
You could shorten the span a bit and it gets even worse for Secret and Liquid. People are too focused on being fans and giving different weightings to international tournaments where in ESL they play against almost the same teams as in a Valve Major. Yes you could say players work harder for a Valve Major but I am not so sure, players wanna win everything usually.
To look down on everyone else you have to be on top, and only EG can claim that for the longest time.
Dude invites for a major are not based on the Performance over a years. It's a Mix of results from the last major, and other tournaments since then. In the case of liquid, secret or eg, the major placement was already good enough to be invited. Of course consistency should also play a role, but not what teams did a year ago. Teams and patches change all the time, so that should not matter.
I mean, if people don't see a problem with a team like Complexity who won literally TWO best of three series in premier tournaments in their entire time as a team getting a direct invite to a major I don't even know what else to say.
I'm not even kidding, group stages and 2 lower bracket bo1's at Shanghai aside, their only wins come from a 2-1 series vs Alliance and a 2-0 over the half-dead VP roster. How is that worthy of a major invite, only Gaben knows.
I really dislike the fact that Valve is even inviting more teams than before. I would have invited lesser teams after a reshuffle to give more teams a realistic shot of qualifying. If 12 teams were invited and secret and EG were invited i really think that DC should have get an invite two. They have two players that won last major and Valve seams to invite teams dispite they changed up and brought nothing to the table afterthat just based of prominent players. I think Valve should be more vocal about their invite concept. Navi performant outstanding at starladder invitational but this was a tournament based on invites. Other teams had not the chance to perform there. And other Navi Lan Performances were awful. I really can understand that invite (and the one going to LGD) only with the viewership they generate in their respective region. And this should not be a factor in determining which teams deserve an invite.
But we have to live with Valves decission and hope for clearer communication in the future.
On April 27 2016 18:49 Racket wrote: I am just pointing out that people is biased af but can't accept it. Tend to call out teams because to them only numbers matter but they are not able to do the numbers of their own team.
You don't seem to understand a common sense topic such as consistency in a competitive environment, where every team is compared to the others. Secret did not win everything, neither did they need to in order to be one of the most consistent. They went to the finals of both Majors, won one of them, won lans outside of them too, placed decently in others. How is Na'Vi going to a single finals of a not very competitive lan even comparable to that, please explain how exactly the numbers don't matter? How are Na'Vi and Secret just as inconsistent?
And you point at EG as being the only consistent one while saying people judge based off fanboyism alone, surely you can't be biased.
Easy to compare NaVi, a team that sucked for two years with a team that didn't suck for those two years. You have to be objective in the sense that any team who has to qualify has less chances to show they are at the same level when there is only one spot and they fight against four other teams that are as good as they are.
For instance: On the one hand: Tournament 1: Team 1 qualifies, ends up 5th. Tournament 2: Team 2 qualifies, ends up 4th. Tournament 3: Team 1 qualifies, ends up 3rd. On the other hand: Tournament 1: Liquid gets invited, ends up 6th. Tournament 2: Liquid gets invited, ends up 2nd. Tournament 3: Liquid gets invited, ends up 4th.
How is this never ending invite cycle going to be broken if you have outside, in quals, four teams almost as strong as Liquid but only one at a time can show if they are up to the task? Why are you so sure Liquid will qualify every single time over those other four? If you are so sure they will qualify, what are you so afraid of? Cheese? If you get cheesed twice in a bo3 by a shitty team, either they are shit and everyone of their opponents 'till then are shit too, or they cheesed their way to that bo3 and you didn't care about them enough to know they cheese. In both examples it is your fault losing to them. Do you want to make it more fair? Make finals bo5 and group stage before brackets. Too long? Deal with it.
People don't like to be told that there are other teams almost as good as their teams and they tend to wield the argument that every now and then their team ends up first.
I quote myself and add the standings of those tourneys
On March 24 2016 01:00 Racket wrote: - 2014-10-10 ESL One New York 2014 -> Q Star Ladder Star Series Season 10 -> Q The Summit 2 -> Q XMG Captains Draft 2.0 -> ? Dota Pit League Season 2 -> ? - 2015-02-08 Dota 2 Asia Championships -> I -> 3rd Star Ladder Star Series Season 12 -> I (as everybody else) same as Q -> 7-8th 2015 Red Bull Battle Grounds -> I (as everybody else) same as Q -> 1st The Summit 3 -> I (as everybody else) same as Q -> 1st MarsTV Dota 2 League 2015 Spring -> I -> 1st ESL One Frankfurt 2015 -> I -> 1st Dota Pit League Season 3 -> I -> 5-6th The International 2015 -> I -> 7-8th World Cyber Arena 2015 -> I (as everybody else) same as Q -> 1st ESL One New York 2015 -> I -> 2nd MLG World Finals 2015 -> I -> 1st The Summit 4 -> I (as everybody else) same as Q -> 1st Nanyang Dota 2 Championships -> I -> 2nd Frankfurt Major 2015 -> I -> 9-12th Star Ladder Star Series Season 13 -> I (as everybody else) same as Q -> 5-6th MarsTV Dota 2 League Winter 2015 -> I -> 7-8th The Shanghai Major 2016 -> I -> 1st Dota Pit League Season 4 -> I -> 5-8th ESL One Manila 2016 -> I -> 5-6th
They didn't play a single real qualifier since February 2015. Tell me how in the world do you get an invite after placing 9-12th, 5-6th and 7-8th? I call it viewership, amount of fans, whatever. It isn't fair, it is business. Thing is we are talking about deserving, and deserving today takes into account not only current form but also past achievements, the question is "how far in the past?" and for a fan it will be "as long as it takes for your team to deserve it" which is also not fair for the others. You could argue that you will see teams as crappy as Archon instead of the glorious EG, I say it is EG's fault and they should step up if they are in fact better.
Many mention NaVi like if I like NaVi more than coL I would choose them over coL. My point is that they do the same they say I do but can't realize it nor accept it. If I am biased they are more biased, and the funny thing is I am asking for NaVi not getting the invite along with everyone, and if they end up out of the Major, I am ok with it.
If would love to be quoted saying NaVi deserved the invite more than some other team in the past year or two.
On April 27 2016 20:42 Salazarz wrote: I mean, if people don't see a problem with a team like Complexity who won literally TWO best of three series in premier tournaments in their entire time as a team getting a direct invite to a major I don't even know what else to say.
I'm not even kidding, group stages and 2 lower bracket bo1's at Shanghai aside, their only wins come from a 2-1 series vs Alliance and a 2-0 over the half-dead VP roster. How is that worthy of a major invite, only Gaben knows.
Their losses don't look that bad. Their group stages looked good as well. That's enough for me. Relative to their peers and other fringe teams (say VP Vega etc) they have shown more consistency in their performances. Doesn't matter if they have not won anything.
Sadly if we were to justify invites solely on merit, only liquid, VGR and wings would have made the cut. The 2 Chinese teams stood out among their Chinese peers. Liquid has the same roster and performed at the same top level. Eg and secret are unproven with their new lineup, and their invites are justified solely on reputation of performing well in top events. Navi/col have not won anything, alliance og MVP are in a slump, Fnatic has only won against sea teams and fucked up at ESL, LGD did alright in star ladder, but examining it closely it was only 2 Bo3 wins and that they are a mess domestically.
On April 27 2016 18:37 Racket wrote: To begin with, having a Major with a different patch, and issuing invites based on the previous patch is the most dumb move to do.
Second, people talk about consistency of teams and the only team that could not be argued about is EG, in the span of a year EG ended: 2nd, 2nd, 5-6th, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 5-8th, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 2nd Secret ended: 7-8th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 5-6th, 7-8th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 9-12th, 5-6th, 7-8th, 1st, 5-8th, 5-6th Liquid ended: 4th, 1st, 1st, 5-6th, 3rd, 3-4th, 5-6th, 2nd, 2nd (they are still not a year old)
You could shorten the span a bit and it gets even worse for Secret and Liquid. People are too focused on being fans and giving different weightings to international tournaments where in ESL they play against almost the same teams as in a Valve Major. Yes you could say players work harder for a Valve Major but I am not so sure, players wanna win everything usually.
To look down on everyone else you have to be on top, and only EG can claim that for the longest time.
Eh Liquid didn't have worse showing than 5-6th. Bunch of grand finals, looking really strong There's 12 invited teams In what universe are they not an autoinvite, based on your own data?
yeesh 12 invites, that's like 75% of the tournament locked and loaded. at least it pleases everyone who's not into the up-and-comers. and i dont see how shazam > DC even in BO1
On April 27 2016 18:37 Racket wrote: To begin with, having a Major with a different patch, and issuing invites based on the previous patch is the most dumb move to do.
Second, people talk about consistency of teams and the only team that could not be argued about is EG, in the span of a year EG ended: 2nd, 2nd, 5-6th, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 5-8th, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 2nd Secret ended: 7-8th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 5-6th, 7-8th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 9-12th, 5-6th, 7-8th, 1st, 5-8th, 5-6th Liquid ended: 4th, 1st, 1st, 5-6th, 3rd, 3-4th, 5-6th, 2nd, 2nd (they are still not a year old)
You could shorten the span a bit and it gets even worse for Secret and Liquid. People are too focused on being fans and giving different weightings to international tournaments where in ESL they play against almost the same teams as in a Valve Major. Yes you could say players work harder for a Valve Major but I am not so sure, players wanna win everything usually.
To look down on everyone else you have to be on top, and only EG can claim that for the longest time.
Eh Liquid didn't have worse showing than 5-6th. Bunch of grand finals, looking really strong There's 12 invited teams In what universe are they not an autoinvite, based on your own data?
I am saying 0 invites, not 1 or 2, zero. Zero gives no chance of discussion. Zero.
75% invites is just plain unacceptable. At least make some sort of DotA 2 ATP-like ranking that would objectively justify taking the top x of the ranking for the next tournament instaed of having dumb arguments about who did or didn't deserve the invite that time when the invites are clearly subjective. There still needs to be an option to qualify though. Maybe just make Majors bigger with 24 teams or sth if you want to invite so many.
Make every other tournament in the scene even more meaningless, put extreme emphasis on a few individual games online instead of LANs. It seems to me that is what 0 invites would lead to unless they drastically also change the way qualifiers are run and such.
0 invites wouldn't be that big of an issue if the spots were decided for example in regional LANs. Perhaps that regional LAN could have some seeding based on past results, while teams with no past results would have to qualify for that online. If it's regional it is easier to have a lot of teams due to lower travel costs, so it's easier to reward teams that have previous results without restricting other teams too much. Perhaps Valve could partner with some 3rd party organizers on each region to have their event be the official qualifier.
But if it's an online qualifier, I don't like the idea of 0 invites at all.
On April 27 2016 18:37 Racket wrote: To begin with, having a Major with a different patch, and issuing invites based on the previous patch is the most dumb move to do.
Second, people talk about consistency of teams and the only team that could not be argued about is EG, in the span of a year EG ended: 2nd, 2nd, 5-6th, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 5-8th, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 2nd Secret ended: 7-8th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 5-6th, 7-8th, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 9-12th, 5-6th, 7-8th, 1st, 5-8th, 5-6th Liquid ended: 4th, 1st, 1st, 5-6th, 3rd, 3-4th, 5-6th, 2nd, 2nd (they are still not a year old)
You could shorten the span a bit and it gets even worse for Secret and Liquid. People are too focused on being fans and giving different weightings to international tournaments where in ESL they play against almost the same teams as in a Valve Major. Yes you could say players work harder for a Valve Major but I am not so sure, players wanna win everything usually.
To look down on everyone else you have to be on top, and only EG can claim that for the longest time.
Eh Liquid didn't have worse showing than 5-6th. Bunch of grand finals, looking really strong There's 12 invited teams In what universe are they not an autoinvite, based on your own data?
I am saying 0 invites, not 1 or 2, zero. Zero gives no chance of discussion. Zero.
0 invites would be fun for me as a viewer. Yet I don't think it is fair to expect them to actually show up at events outside of Valve ones if that is done. Minor point in playing most of them if they have 0 impact on invites to the tournaments where the money is at.
On April 27 2016 20:53 Racket wrote: Tell me how in the world do you get an invite after placing 9-12th, 5-6th and 7-8th? I call it viewership, amount of fans, whatever. It isn't fair, it is business.
You can cherry pick results this way for any team. Tell me how in the world do you NOT get an invite to a major after getting 2nd and then 1st place in the previous two, on top of winning other lans? These are not even TI's where they're 1 year away from each other, no point saying we're going too far behind.
And the fact that you believe there should be zero invites is another topic tbh, since these comparisons of results that you're doing would be irrelevant in that case. That's just a matter of preference, just don't bring it down to arguments like "no team won 80% of the tournaments, therefore none is consistent" when there are objective stats showing different levels of consistency and achievements among teams, regardless of whether you like them or not.
0 Invites would be really stupid as an organizing principle, especially in a situation where Regions have different strengths relative to the whole. There's going to be 6 Europe-based teams at Manila, as it is.
On April 27 2016 20:42 Salazarz wrote: I mean, if people don't see a problem with a team like Complexity who won literally TWO best of three series in premier tournaments in their entire time as a team getting a direct invite to a major I don't even know what else to say.
I'm not even kidding, group stages and 2 lower bracket bo1's at Shanghai aside, their only wins come from a 2-1 series vs Alliance and a 2-0 over the half-dead VP roster. How is that worthy of a major invite, only Gaben knows.
OG Bo3 wins since (including) Shanghai major discounting Bo1s and group stages: MVP. and Alliance, both at SL.
Alliance Bo3 wins since (including) Shanghai major discounting Bo1s and group stages: VP
LGD Bo3 wins since (including) Shanghai major discounting Bo1s and group stages: Vega, Alliance.
As you see, coL/OG/[A]/LGD are all in the same boat here.
But coL has top 6 Shanghai to speak for them and Volvo invites top 6 at previous major without questions.
On April 27 2016 20:42 Salazarz wrote: I mean, if people don't see a problem with a team like Complexity who won literally TWO best of three series in premier tournaments in their entire time as a team getting a direct invite to a major I don't even know what else to say.
I'm not even kidding, group stages and 2 lower bracket bo1's at Shanghai aside, their only wins come from a 2-1 series vs Alliance and a 2-0 over the half-dead VP roster. How is that worthy of a major invite, only Gaben knows.
They are NA. That's all that it comes down to. They need two NA invites and apart from coL and EG there is nobody close to competitive.
Valve said in their blog post the following: "We also think it’s very important for the ecosystem as a whole if third-party LAN tournaments during the year are able to have a lasting impact on the Major invites, rather than largely depending on qualifiers.". They use 3rd party tournaments as qualifiers in a way already. Alliance won SL in January (this was after the Shanghai invites went out so it hasn't counted to any major before this), VGR, NaVi and LGD were the top3 at the recent SL, and Wings won ESL. That's 5 teams that guaranteed their spots in 3rd party events after the Shanghai invites went out, you could even say they "qualified" instead of them being randomly invited.
On April 27 2016 21:40 spudde123 wrote: Valve said in their blog post the following: "We also think it’s very important for the ecosystem as a whole if third-party LAN tournaments during the year are able to have a lasting impact on the Major invites, rather than largely depending on qualifiers.". They use 3rd party tournaments as qualifiers in a way already. Alliance won SL in January (this was after the Shanghai invites went out so it hasn't counted to any major before this), VGR, NaVi and LGD were the top3 at the recent SL, and Wings won ESL. That's 5 teams that guaranteed their spots in 3rd party events after the Shanghai invites went out, you could even say they "qualified" instead of them being randomly invited.
And judging by CDEC invite, top 6 at previous Major are auto qualified for next.
On April 27 2016 20:53 Racket wrote: Tell me how in the world do you get an invite after placing 9-12th, 5-6th and 7-8th? I call it viewership, amount of fans, whatever. It isn't fair, it is business.
You can cherry pick results this way for any team. Tell me how in the world do you NOT get an invite to a major after getting 2nd and then 1st place in the previous two, on top of winning other lans? These are not even TI's where they're 1 year away from each other, no point saying we're going too far behind.
And the fact that you believe there should be zero invites is another topic tbh, since these comparisons of results that you're doing would be irrelevant in that case. That's just a matter of preference, just don't bring it down to arguments like "no team won 80% of the tournaments, therefore none is consistent" when there are objective stats showing different levels of consistency and achievements among teams, regardless of whether you like them or not.
People justify invites using 6 months or older achievements even with different rosters and patches. If you end up 9-12th, 5-6th and 7-8th why would you get an invite? Because you ended up 2nd four months ago with a different roster? Are you kidding me?
I am not against any team in particular, I am against the system after seeing a lot of teams getting shafted because quals spots are so few and the base for that is that they are not consistent and teams that get invited over the course of a year are more consistent, even if they don't end up 3rd at best.
Now people complain about N0tail being the weakest link of the team and saying Miracle is being held down by him. Yea right, the dude who raised on a patch and was called the best player in the world one patch later can't even carry his old teammate, and it is not his fault. COME ON! If that is not bias what is?
The Zero invites is a solution to the few invites, because inviting too few is also impossible to justify for the fans.
On April 27 2016 20:42 Salazarz wrote: I mean, if people don't see a problem with a team like Complexity who won literally TWO best of three series in premier tournaments in their entire time as a team getting a direct invite to a major I don't even know what else to say.
I'm not even kidding, group stages and 2 lower bracket bo1's at Shanghai aside, their only wins come from a 2-1 series vs Alliance and a 2-0 over the half-dead VP roster. How is that worthy of a major invite, only Gaben knows.
They are NA. That's all that it comes down to. They need two NA invites and apart from coL and EG there is nobody close to competitive.
Valve never had problem inviting only 1 or even none of teams from region, hell a Shanghai major for example.
Simply coL and EG are both top 6 at Shanghai and Volvo has to invite them because of their own formula.
EPT
