Team Secret Discussion - Page 143

On March 23 2016 19:12 goody153 wrote:
Invites are there to prevent the actual stables teams getting fluked by awful and we seeing a shitty competition. That's because there are ALOT A LOT of teams that are only good at one tournament or a couple of series. That's true look at what happened to Vega. You want a blunt example navi from ti5 qualifiers they are the "best" of EU qualifiers and what happened to them at TI5 ? How well did they fare against the "invited" teams? Even if we look back more rarely did we have some qualifier teams owning against everybody ( CDEC ), it's usually the qualifier team getting owned more than them owning(mouz).

The qualifiers give the other unproven team chances to fight back.

The invite's can be wrong sometimes but that's just part of it which is better than risking watching a bunch of bad teams play against each other in the most important tournaments of dota just because they did well over 1 series. Holy shit that's so bad. Believe it or not FORMS exist in dota. Stable teams suck sometimes and get fluked but shit teams can win sometimes and suck the entire year.

And are you seriously doubting to invite the last major qualfiers ? Does the shanghai invite on Secret look like a mistake now ? I seriously i hope some time from now i don't see you making an argument of "but navi beat x team in 1 b03 they should be invited even though they lost like 10 of their other series against other teams!" and you making an argument right now that the best team of the last valve tournament not get invited and that performing well does not matter shit at all.

On March 23 2016 20:05 Racket wrote:

First of all, the best team of the last valve tournament lost 2 of its 5 members, so that doesn't hold anymore, I don't care if you hire "better" players. The teams is not that team anymore.
Performing well does matter, but if you are so sure they will perform well, then why are you so mad if they had to qualify? Are you afraid of getting cheesed or just not so confident that they are not as strong as to qualify each and every time?

When my team plays I love to see them play, be it a qualifier or a real tournament, if they lose... whatever, if they win... yay!
I rather see them playing more games than less, maybe you just want them to gather trophies.

Every time you see a tournament of 8 teams and 6 of those are always the same, the trophy usually ends up in the hands of one of those 6 teams, how would it be different? Statistics will be on my side, if you have always the same 6 teams and those teams place well every tournament because they have the chance to play there, the chances of they not getting a direct invite to the next to tournament are quite small. Maybe the 8th place will be shaky, but as long as they get another direct invite (which happens) and they place 4th in the next tournament or they beat one of the 1st/2nd/3rd place of last tournament, the cycle goes on. That is plain stupid.

Given that, if you have 10 tournaments where 6 teams are getting direct invites for each one of them, and then you see the qualifiers where everything is so stacked then it is not so easy for the same team to qualify each and every time. We are talking about EU+CIS, not AM where you have 1 and half teams and that's it.
You mean to say that if EU+CIS had 4 spots, one of those would always be Secret? Even with OG, Vega, Alliance, Liquid, Empire and I could name some more teams that could take a best of three in such situations...

People blame it on whatever excuse they find to satisfy themselves, but the thing is the teams are losing not a bo1 but a bo3 or a bo5 against dark horses more often and it keeps happening.

I don't want to extend this any longer, this is just a matter of opinions, you think inviting 6 teams is ok and I don't. The only way to prove I am right is removing invites completely and that will never happen, so life goes on and its clearly on your side, enjoy your direct invites while they last.

On a side note, NaVi beating Secret is for me nothing more that a random occurrence, they are not solid and they just lost to Danish Bears before beating them, they could lose tomorrow to anyone.

On March 23 2016 20:21 Zaphid wrote:


You are writing a lot of words, but they don't have much grounding in reality. Sure, you could go away with direct invites, but that just puts us several years back, where you could see AAA teams playing every day in random bracket stages, stomping quite a few up and comers, the players were complaining about effectively scrimming in tournaments and overall level of play was a lot lower. Not to mention tournaments are a business and playing a tournament without EG/Navi/Secret/Alliance is terrible for your viewership. It also keeps players focused and able to plan their schedule several months ahead, whereas they used to have no idea which tournaments will they end up attending or not, which in a world of visa issues is much more desirable.

Your argument about qualifiers makes no sense - bo3 are still rather volatile format, all the pros accept that and you can regularly read how the smallest things made the whole game fall apart. Yes, everybody loves a dark horse story, but those happen all the time anyway. Even Secret's run in Shanghai was pretty surprising, very rarely is the strongest team on paper actually the champion.

On March 23 2016 20:29 goody153 wrote:
Statistics will only be on your side when there are more qualifier teams that actually win and dumpster the invited teams more than what actually happens usually. You are even just basing this on "situational" scenario where the qualifier team is better which isn't mostly the case.

On March 23 2016 20:29 goody153 wrote:
So you claim say that "performance matters" but claim that it shouldn't affect the who gets in the big tournament despite if they won like the last tournament ? You are still basically saying even if they won the previous tournament it doesn't matter !! You are still saying previous performance MEANS SHIT.

On March 23 2016 20:29 goody153 wrote:
Why would the teams that are winning should suffer to compensate for an undeserving team that is sucking just so that we can see them play more ? That's so stupid if you wanted them to play more then they should play better and actually win shit.

On March 23 2016 20:29 goody153 wrote:
So if we use your thoughtprocess then teams even absolutely more terrible than navi should play as much games in the same "high profile" tournament as navi because they deserve it and they don't have to work for it. That's how that thoughtprocess works of yours.

On March 23 2016 21:09 uthgard wrote:
eh It's a topic where there's no right or wrong, for me the current system works pretty damn well and I see no reason changing it.

also just to chime in, the comparison to football (at least in CL) is actually similar to dota in a way that there are teams that go straight to group stages and there are teams that must go through the qualifier. Ofc the system is different but there is obvious similarity.

On March 23 2016 21:05 Racket wrote:

No goody, you are wrong, for that to happen ONE team has to beat SIX teams, the odds are against them. For my statement to happen, any of those SIX teams has to beat ONE team, it is easier in every possible way.
I am not saying the qualified team is better, I am saying the qualified team can stand to them.


No, I am not saying it means shit, I am saying that if they are as good as their performance showed last time, they should still qualify. If they do not qualify then it means they are not up to the task THIS TIME.


Again, the odds of one dark horse beating everyone to the top are smaller because they are against everyone where Secret beating EG is enough for them to get a direct invite next time. As long as they keep the cycle it will never break.
We saw Vega take ESL, we saw OG take the Major, we saw MVP take DotaPit, we saw CDEC 2nd place TI. How many more examples do you need to accept invites are suffocating other teams?
If Vega was invited directly to every tournament instead of Secret, are you that sure they would have qualified where Vega didn't?

Dude, are you kidding me? I am saying all teams should have to work the same amount to reach the same instances and you are saying I am saying "teams even absolutely more terrible than navi " don't have to work for it?
How is "Secret should play the same amount of games as Liquid" making Liquid play less games?

Could you please stop adding your NaVi arguments here, I have never mentioned them and I am not using them as base or argument for anything.

On March 23 2016 21:10 Racket wrote:

I know, not every league works the same way, most do though.

Edit: Mine was only an opinion, people just take it to the hearth "how can you doubt my team!!" and so.

On March 23 2016 20:52 Racket wrote:

Wait a moment, we don't see games for important tournaments every day. So as long as we are talking about ESL, DotaPit, DreamLeague, etc then they won't have to play against me and my friends.
Also, we are talking about direct invites vs qualifiers, you can filter those random bracket stages with open qualifiers, just like we see with Majors and some other tournaments.

Players complaining about low level? Whatever man, once again, you see in football how Italy goes against Monaco and wins 43-0, so? Life is life, you have to deal with it, if you want to be a princess go and find a castle for yourself.
I don't see Barcelona complaining about going against a C or B league team in the Copa del Rey or when they play against the last one of the A league.

Every other point you make can be easily solved with planning ahead, but of course, this is business and Dota is still not a sport legally speaking, so I guess the solution is doing things properly, how hard can that be?
I guess the answer is writing "James is an ass" is more important than turning Dota into a real sport.

If you think comparing Dota to football is wrong then we can compare Dota to LoL, and there you can see how a real e-Sport is handled.
You have to qualify for a season, you play that season, you win you stay you lose you play quals again. Were you the best? you go to worlds... weren't you? cya next time.
You even have extra tournaments taking place outside of the season window and that works too! Wow, I can't believe it is possible.

You may argue you like Dota format better, I also see good things in that, can't deny it.

On March 23 2016 21:21 goody153 wrote:


No you claimed that even if the team who won alot and the team who didn't win shit should have equal opportunities. You are basically saying past performance means shit. Why does this matter? IT DOES BECAUSE THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR A TEAM TO DO WELL IF EVERYBODY GOT EQUAL CHANCES. I MEAN WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT I COULD GO 0-90, PLACE LAST EVERY TOURNAMENT I'M STILL PLAYING THE THE SAME FIELD AS THE BEST TEAM. HEHE

And why the hell does that matter ? THat just means we will see more teams like Archon on the main event than teams that are actually good. At this point if it's not the best competition anymore, there's no gurantee. It;s just shit, more games will be shit, more teams will be shit.

In your thoughtprocess iIf a bunch of 4k's formed a team and claimed to be a "pro" team they SHOULD get to play with the best teams in the world on the PRESTIGEOUS TOURNAMENT OF VALVE. Cause why ? Cause fairness HEHE I mean fuck competition, right ? Even if a team has zero credibility of being good

What's the point of competition anyways if that's the case,

And just in case you haven't noticed your proposal already happened a year before TI5. In the tournaments who were qualifier heavy GUESS WHO MADE IT.

And now did those qualifier heavy tournaments give the weaker teams a chance to play in the big field ? NO the best of them didn't cause they lost the qualifiers to the proven. Instead of the chance that they could upset them in the tournament if the invited team wasn't on the qualifiers they just lost it.

And what happens if they qualified over the invited teams and just did good AT THAT QUALIFIER ONLY. So that would mean they'd just play absolute shit at the qualifiers? Growth ? fuck no lol

Less on invites and more on qualifiers that is good but not qualifier purely lol that system would just mean that someone like lets say EG would have no distinction over a bunch of 4k's


SURE Opinion. If Secret was doing shit would i say "they deserve an invite" fuck no. Before shanghai major did i say Secret was a contender? No.

but i don't try to make excuses for less deserving teams to play at the most prestigious tournaments if they don't earn it.

On March 23 2016 21:24 bluzi wrote:


I agree to some extent, BUT , football for instance , Barcelona plays for a year in LaLiga , if they do well , they get INVITED to the champions league which is the "international" of club football , what you say is lets have a qualifier even for the best teams , which is not how soccer works for example , you could argue that LaLiga is a qualifier but it will be dumb. Mondial does have qualifiers for everyone i guess , so theres that but its once every 4 years so you can prepare for it.

tldr - invites are good to sustain growth of the sport , you will have bigger teams and stronger brands , they will acquire up and coming players and life will go on , like in football you like to mention , Barcelona will always be a top team because they buy the best players , you rarely get a surprise in top level football results thats how it is. so don't expect "you and your friends" to be able to win a TI , its a fantasy that will never happen to an amateur team.

On March 23 2016 21:53 Racket wrote:

The thing is, these teams I speak about are invited to each and every event taking place, there is no such thing as a positioning, as long as you qualify once, and you end up from now on 4th so to say, you will end up invited each and every time. I am saying there are more teams that could end up 4th if they played there. As long as we see Secret, EG, OG or any other team losing to Liquid, Vega or MVP my point stands.

Edit: Even better, if you were to face the so called 4th place to the team who lost the qualifier finals, they could lose. If that were to happen often, could you really say that 4th place deserves an invite to every event?

On March 23 2016 21:50 Racket wrote:

What are you even saying? Most of your paragraphs are full of non-sense. They don't address what I said, and you even go and say to me I said things I didn't say. Dude go read the posts and try again.


In short, an open qualifiers to filter 4k teams, then a qualifier with all those super strong deserving extra planetary rocket mega teams playing against each other plus the FEW from open quals result in the X spots of the real tournament.
If Secret were to lose against an open quals, shame on them, if they were to lose against lets say Liquid, my point stands.

On March 23 2016 22:34 goody153 wrote:


It's not that hard to understand if you don't have the mindset to discredit the winners and those who performed well in the past. You practically don't care how teams do in the past. What's the point of a competition honestly ?

And why does a team that goes 0-90 deserve to play over a team that won a couple of tournaments.That's why there is a qualifier so that we don't waste our time not watching the best.

Like i said there were qualifier heavy tournaments last year guess the result. It's still those teams who gets invited. And did that encourage growth ? Obviously not, they lost they didn't get the chance to play against everybody in the tournament if they qualified instead. At least when having the invitees on another group and the qualifier teams on another group they would have a chance to prove themselves

If Efforts are worth shit in that case why would teams even care to play and try to be their best before the most important tournament of the year if they are still in the same place as the teams who did well ?

You are basing this qualifier style on a 1-1 basis not on how good a team fares against everybody against only 1 team. Why do you think we have group stages? It's one of the gauges to how good teams are.

This qualifier on everybody is random. There's less stability and more chances of shit games and shit teams. Why that's because you are basing this in 1-1 basis so if Secret loses to Navi once they qualify right? What if navi loses to everybody that isn't secret and to secret it doesn't happen. Basically you just wasted 1 slot to have an actual good team over a dumpster team.

Why is it important that we watch a team that actually does fare against most than a team that only fares well on one occasion ? That's because we are watching the "best" dota. What's the point of watching if it's not the best and there's barely any difference from top level pubs.

It's already hard enough with how volatile dota is. This will just make it more random than ever. And no god b01 is not the same b03 or b05. Pls don't be that stupid.

and no football and dota are very different.

---

If we have completely qualifier based system. Then i want a b03 1 group round robin. Actually no

The qualifiers system should be b05 or bust. 1 group round robin.

I just hope Secret never ever again puts up a shameful performance or I will make you remember this.

On March 24 2016 00:44 goody153 wrote:


Oh pls i'll be able to just pull out that navi lost more than won whenever you try to claim navi needs an invite or deserves a win or a streak after your set of statements. Cause it looks like you just undermine past results like it means shit.

And pls if you think that people will get lazy because they get invites, THEY WILL GET MORE LAZY not caring how well they will do before the biggest tournament of the year considering everybody gets the same treatment and everybody gets the same invites. Why would they ? Regardless if they do well or not before the biggest event they'll have the same chances as the top teams, they'll just have to put their best when the money counts the most and not care about the rest of the year. Unlike what you claim they'll get lazy before they could get lazy they have to have results first before becoming lazy.

It's like you are assuming that only weaker teams get stronger and the best teams already hit a peak. You are assuming that there will always be an underdog run (even though that's not mostly true) . No there is not, it happens but why would you sacrifice the quality over "chances" of that happening. There's already enough chance for that to happen that's with the enough slots of qualifiers and like your argument if they are good then they should be able to beat the qualifiers.

You know i don't think having more qualifier spots but removing the invites is just plain stupid. I don't wanna watch a bunch of t3 teams at the best tournament in the world just because they managed to fluke against the more stabler team who has done well in multiple patches and through a long time. Cause believe it or not dota has a "adapting" thing and i don't want to see teams who manage to win 1 qualifier then proceed to suck other tournaments and suck at the tournament they managed to qualify just because they managed to be good in 1 day.

At least with invites we make sure that the stabler teams get in and if the qualifier team beats the stabler teams then good they deserve going through the qualifiers after all but apart from that it'll kill alot of quality from the tournaments. Cause a stabler team will suck that's the truth but they suck LESS than the one trick pony teams who only managed to be good once and suck A LOT OF TIMES.

Why do you think we watch less of the NA dota tournaments or when non of the top teams attend ? Because the fan favorites aren't there partly sure, bad production sure but the truth is that it sucks. The quality of the games sucks and the teams sucks that's why people would prefer other tournaments or the ones with most top teams. Unless you want valve tournaments or the biggest tournament of the year look like those NA tournaments then you would understand what the hell i meant. Don't tell me you don't think those tournaments suck compared to the premium ones because they absolutely do, the teams make awful decisions, less team synergy and a lot more terrible players.

That's why if you wanted your "qualifier" system it should always be b05 round robin. Makes sure it's no fluke shitty teams won't ever go through since there's a time to adapt and they will be tested with everybody.