|
On November 22 2014 10:12 phyvo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 09:47 Alaric wrote:
That's about the same as calling Swain's combo a "minigame" because you first hit E, then you hit the other spells during its debuff.
Or with Talon's E.
Or Zed's ult.
Or whatever damage amplification really. Eh... not really. There's a big difference between E->Q on champions every so often and having to do the same thing except for every single one of your CS (I exaggerate since 1 Q serves multiple Es, but you get the idea). For a similar reason I would have preferred that they left E at a .6 or .7 second CD after reset (compensating her DPS of course) since after playing new Cass for awhile I actually got annoyed with having to press E so much (though when I made that remark on the official forums I got downvoted quickly, sadface). It's not quite a mini-game on the scale of, say, Draven's axes, but it's still there.
No, I'm talking about PX calling "if you E someone, they'll take more damage from your Q and W, and it stacks" a "minigame".
|
On November 22 2014 10:22 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 09:56 Ryuu314 wrote:They should just revert the Cass rework already. On November 22 2014 09:13 TheYango wrote:
The more ridiculous part is that it includes the possibility of cross-regional team ownership (well, it actually has to in order to affect Alex Garfield at all) AND includes ALL potential Worlds-qualifying Leagues. Riot can't possibly expect it to be believable that they have the ability to maintain control over all possible indirect associations between the teams that encompasses. The way I understand it, EG and ALL are (theoretically) completely controlled by GGA since the EG and ALL brand along with the team's revenue stream are under Garfield's thumb despite Garfield not owning either team. This gives Garfield a lot of leverage over EG and ALL, which is a legitimate concern since theoretically, you can get a situation where Garfield can threaten to cut off sponsorship or kick the team from the brand. As I understand it, LCS spots belong to the brand, not the players so the latter option would basically boot the team from LCS. Riot wants LCS to be like major sports leagues. That is, one organization owns and controls one team (usually). The problem is that unlike major sports leagues, many teams don't do their own sponsorship searching. GGA does that for a bunch of teams, making it kind of an utterly pointless rule change since whoever controls the money controls the team (or at least exerts a shitton of influence over them). Quibbling about the feasibility of riffling through paperwork to see what company owns what is kind of a pointless concern. That happens in basically every industry, not just gaming. It's also not that hard to figure out unless the companies get really really creative or are multi-national. Essentially, the rules change forces people like Garfield to either 1) play by Riot's rules or 2) spend a lot of their own resources making shell companies (which may or may not be worth the effort). And yet. Riot both gave their blessing and gave Alex the motive to create an LCS team sponsorship monopoly. I want it so bad
Yea, it was a pointless change. It was also a no-win situation.
If they maintain status quo and Alex gets a ton of control over EG and ALL (personally I don't think Alex would ever leverage that control in a bad way, but it's arguably a bad precedent). If they change rules and don't let Alex do the sponsorship thing, they alienate a huge esports player. If they do what they did, Alex gets arguably more control albeit in a more subtle manner.
|
Alex setting up his Goodgame agency as the sole provider of LCS team sponsorships would be damn hilarious.
|
On November 22 2014 09:56 Ryuu314 wrote:They should just revert the Cass rework already. Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 09:13 TheYango wrote:
The more ridiculous part is that it includes the possibility of cross-regional team ownership (well, it actually has to in order to affect Alex Garfield at all) AND includes ALL potential Worlds-qualifying Leagues. Riot can't possibly expect it to be believable that they have the ability to maintain control over all possible indirect associations between the teams that encompasses. Riot wants LCS to be like major sports leagues. That is, one organization owns and controls one team (usually). The problem is that unlike major sports leagues, many teams don't do their own sponsorship searching. GGA does that for a bunch of teams, making it kind of an utterly pointless rule change since whoever controls the money controls the team (or at least exerts a shitton of influence over them).
The issue I have with this is that the possibility of competitive integrity being questioned is WAYYY below the problem of inadequate support and compensation for players. This is true for every E-Sport, but particularly true for LOL below the top 4 in every scene.
Its 10x easier for Riot to structure group stages and elimination stages of tournaments to avoid sister teams playing in a situation where they would want to collude then it is to find another Samsung, or another EG, etc.
|
The team owners need to band together against riot unless riot is willing to work with them, and the players need to collectively bargain, even though its exceptionally difficult with how little rights they get with their contracts. there is no reason to give riot this sort of absolute control over the workings of the whole scene down to deciding how teams should be run and how anyone who works for the organization can act in public. especially when those teams input is only taken as a courtesy. when its really meaningless.
|
Well imagine if say, TSM, C9, CLG and Curse banded together and threathened to leave LCS if Riot doesn't talk with them about some changes. I'd imagine that's some huge bargaining power, and they could just play Solomid invitionals and earn same money if Riot decides to test them :^)
|
On November 22 2014 10:39 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 09:56 Ryuu314 wrote:They should just revert the Cass rework already. On November 22 2014 09:13 TheYango wrote:
The more ridiculous part is that it includes the possibility of cross-regional team ownership (well, it actually has to in order to affect Alex Garfield at all) AND includes ALL potential Worlds-qualifying Leagues. Riot can't possibly expect it to be believable that they have the ability to maintain control over all possible indirect associations between the teams that encompasses. Riot wants LCS to be like major sports leagues. That is, one organization owns and controls one team (usually). The problem is that unlike major sports leagues, many teams don't do their own sponsorship searching. GGA does that for a bunch of teams, making it kind of an utterly pointless rule change since whoever controls the money controls the team (or at least exerts a shitton of influence over them). The issue I have with this is that the possibility of competitive integrity being questioned is WAYYY below the problem of inadequate support and compensation for players. This is true for every E-Sport, but particularly true for LOL below the top 4 in every scene. Its 10x easier for Riot to structure group stages and elimination stages of tournaments to avoid sister teams playing in a situation where they would want to collude then it is to find another Samsung, or another EG, etc.
Maybe, but competitive integrity is the most visible and potentially damaging problem for any esport. Just look what happened to BW.
Adequate support and compensation for players is something that can only come with more exposure and thus, money. LCS is already a financial black hole for Riot; if more money is needed, that can only come from people like Alex or companies like Coca-Cola.
|
On November 22 2014 10:44 AlterKot wrote:
Well imagine if say, TSM, C9, CLG and Curse banded together and threathened to leave LCS if Riot doesn't talk with them about some changes. I'd imagine that's some huge bargaining power, and they could just play Solomid invitionals and earn same money if Riot decides to test them :^)
that really wouldn't do anything. because riot could decide to shut down solomid invitationals through the same methods blizzard threatened to use. The organizations would have to collectively agree to forfeit matches so they LCS isn't run for a few weeks, all the while still hogging up space within LCS so riot couldn't function.
but then again, they'd be in violation of the you aren't allowed to do anything against riot's interests clause of the contracts.
On November 22 2014 10:45 Ryuu314 wrote:
Adequate support and compensation for players is something that can only come with more exposure and thus, money. LCS is already a financial black hole for Riot; if more money is needed, that can only come from people like Alex or companies like Coca-Cola.
Source? Whats the source that the collective value of the sponsorships, ticket sales, ad revenue, free advertisement in media, skin sales/advertisement, is so much less than they spend? Its not like they can use LCS as a loss leader when they only produce one game/service, and its not like riot is some altruistic company that doesn't try to make money.
|
On November 22 2014 10:45 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 10:39 cLutZ wrote:On November 22 2014 09:56 Ryuu314 wrote:They should just revert the Cass rework already. On November 22 2014 09:13 TheYango wrote:
The more ridiculous part is that it includes the possibility of cross-regional team ownership (well, it actually has to in order to affect Alex Garfield at all) AND includes ALL potential Worlds-qualifying Leagues. Riot can't possibly expect it to be believable that they have the ability to maintain control over all possible indirect associations between the teams that encompasses. Riot wants LCS to be like major sports leagues. That is, one organization owns and controls one team (usually). The problem is that unlike major sports leagues, many teams don't do their own sponsorship searching. GGA does that for a bunch of teams, making it kind of an utterly pointless rule change since whoever controls the money controls the team (or at least exerts a shitton of influence over them). The issue I have with this is that the possibility of competitive integrity being questioned is WAYYY below the problem of inadequate support and compensation for players. This is true for every E-Sport, but particularly true for LOL below the top 4 in every scene. Its 10x easier for Riot to structure group stages and elimination stages of tournaments to avoid sister teams playing in a situation where they would want to collude then it is to find another Samsung, or another EG, etc. Maybe, but competitive integrity is the most visible and potentially damaging problem for any esport. Just look what happened to BW. Adequate support and compensation for players is something that can only come with more exposure and thus, money. LCS is already a financial black hole for Riot; if more money is needed, that can only come from people like Alex or companies like Coca-Cola.
I doubt LCS cost outweighs the value it brings in terms of retention and sales.
|
On November 22 2014 10:48 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 10:45 Ryuu314 wrote:On November 22 2014 10:39 cLutZ wrote:On November 22 2014 09:56 Ryuu314 wrote:They should just revert the Cass rework already. On November 22 2014 09:13 TheYango wrote:
The more ridiculous part is that it includes the possibility of cross-regional team ownership (well, it actually has to in order to affect Alex Garfield at all) AND includes ALL potential Worlds-qualifying Leagues. Riot can't possibly expect it to be believable that they have the ability to maintain control over all possible indirect associations between the teams that encompasses. Riot wants LCS to be like major sports leagues. That is, one organization owns and controls one team (usually). The problem is that unlike major sports leagues, many teams don't do their own sponsorship searching. GGA does that for a bunch of teams, making it kind of an utterly pointless rule change since whoever controls the money controls the team (or at least exerts a shitton of influence over them). The issue I have with this is that the possibility of competitive integrity being questioned is WAYYY below the problem of inadequate support and compensation for players. This is true for every E-Sport, but particularly true for LOL below the top 4 in every scene. Its 10x easier for Riot to structure group stages and elimination stages of tournaments to avoid sister teams playing in a situation where they would want to collude then it is to find another Samsung, or another EG, etc. Maybe, but competitive integrity is the most visible and potentially damaging problem for any esport. Just look what happened to BW. Adequate support and compensation for players is something that can only come with more exposure and thus, money. LCS is already a financial black hole for Riot; if more money is needed, that can only come from people like Alex or companies like Coca-Cola. I doubt LCS cost outweighs the value it brings in terms of retention and sales.
That value is hard to measure. Even if you could, I highly doubt it outweighs LCS costs. The teams alone cost Riot over 1.25 million a year. Then add the cost of renting and maintaining the studio, paying the casters and support staff, and there's also a probably a bunch of other miscellaneous costs that I can't think up.
If LCS was overall profitable factoring in exposure/sales, I'm pretty sure Riot wouldn't hesitate to advertise that fact as loudly as possible since that would draw a ton of sponsors.
Riot has said themselves time and again LCS loses them money.
|
Sufficiency, is it possible with the riot API to determine how many people use a Team Icon or a certain skin?
|
|
|
On November 22 2014 10:54 PrinceXizor wrote:
Sufficiency, is it possible with the riot API to determine how many people use a Team Icon or a certain skin?
On top of my head no.
|
On November 22 2014 10:52 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 10:48 Amui wrote:On November 22 2014 10:45 Ryuu314 wrote:On November 22 2014 10:39 cLutZ wrote:On November 22 2014 09:56 Ryuu314 wrote:They should just revert the Cass rework already. On November 22 2014 09:13 TheYango wrote:
The more ridiculous part is that it includes the possibility of cross-regional team ownership (well, it actually has to in order to affect Alex Garfield at all) AND includes ALL potential Worlds-qualifying Leagues. Riot can't possibly expect it to be believable that they have the ability to maintain control over all possible indirect associations between the teams that encompasses. Riot wants LCS to be like major sports leagues. That is, one organization owns and controls one team (usually). The problem is that unlike major sports leagues, many teams don't do their own sponsorship searching. GGA does that for a bunch of teams, making it kind of an utterly pointless rule change since whoever controls the money controls the team (or at least exerts a shitton of influence over them). The issue I have with this is that the possibility of competitive integrity being questioned is WAYYY below the problem of inadequate support and compensation for players. This is true for every E-Sport, but particularly true for LOL below the top 4 in every scene. Its 10x easier for Riot to structure group stages and elimination stages of tournaments to avoid sister teams playing in a situation where they would want to collude then it is to find another Samsung, or another EG, etc. Maybe, but competitive integrity is the most visible and potentially damaging problem for any esport. Just look what happened to BW. Adequate support and compensation for players is something that can only come with more exposure and thus, money. LCS is already a financial black hole for Riot; if more money is needed, that can only come from people like Alex or companies like Coca-Cola. I doubt LCS cost outweighs the value it brings in terms of retention and sales. That value is hard to measure. Even if you could, I highly doubt it outweighs LCS costs. The teams alone cost Riot over 1.25 million a year. Then add the cost of renting and maintaining the studio, paying the casters and support staff, and there's also a probably a bunch of other miscellaneous costs that I can't think up. If LCS was overall profitable factoring in exposure/sales, I'm pretty sure Riot wouldn't hesitate to advertise that fact as loudly as possible since that would draw a ton of sponsors. Riot has said themselves time and again LCS loses them money.
Unless there is proof it would be stupid to just assume that it loses them money.
Can easily make the argument that riot say it loses them money just to be the martyrs that are saving esports.
|
On November 22 2014 10:41 PrinceXizor wrote:
The team owners need to band together against riot unless riot is willing to work with them, and the players need to collectively bargain, even though its exceptionally difficult with how little rights they get with their contracts. there is no reason to give riot this sort of absolute control over the workings of the whole scene down to deciding how teams should be run and how anyone who works for the organization can act in public. especially when those teams input is only taken as a courtesy. when its really meaningless.
you take such a narrow view of things. other sports behave in exactly the same ways. you can be punished in the nba and nfl for things that happened in assumed privacy, let alone in public.
riot started the LCS, riot funds the LCS, riot provides more money in salaries/prizes then most of the players could ever have dreamed of making playing a video game. is the system perfect? no. but, for now, riot calls the shots and i dont see that changing anytime soon.
when did other sports unionize? when the money started flowing, tv deals and sponsorships. the same will (potentially) happen one day in esports, but that time is not now.
On November 22 2014 11:02 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 10:52 Ryuu314 wrote:On November 22 2014 10:48 Amui wrote:On November 22 2014 10:45 Ryuu314 wrote:On November 22 2014 10:39 cLutZ wrote:On November 22 2014 09:56 Ryuu314 wrote:They should just revert the Cass rework already. On November 22 2014 09:13 TheYango wrote:
The more ridiculous part is that it includes the possibility of cross-regional team ownership (well, it actually has to in order to affect Alex Garfield at all) AND includes ALL potential Worlds-qualifying Leagues. Riot can't possibly expect it to be believable that they have the ability to maintain control over all possible indirect associations between the teams that encompasses. Riot wants LCS to be like major sports leagues. That is, one organization owns and controls one team (usually). The problem is that unlike major sports leagues, many teams don't do their own sponsorship searching. GGA does that for a bunch of teams, making it kind of an utterly pointless rule change since whoever controls the money controls the team (or at least exerts a shitton of influence over them). The issue I have with this is that the possibility of competitive integrity being questioned is WAYYY below the problem of inadequate support and compensation for players. This is true for every E-Sport, but particularly true for LOL below the top 4 in every scene. Its 10x easier for Riot to structure group stages and elimination stages of tournaments to avoid sister teams playing in a situation where they would want to collude then it is to find another Samsung, or another EG, etc. Maybe, but competitive integrity is the most visible and potentially damaging problem for any esport. Just look what happened to BW. Adequate support and compensation for players is something that can only come with more exposure and thus, money. LCS is already a financial black hole for Riot; if more money is needed, that can only come from people like Alex or companies like Coca-Cola. I doubt LCS cost outweighs the value it brings in terms of retention and sales. That value is hard to measure. Even if you could, I highly doubt it outweighs LCS costs. The teams alone cost Riot over 1.25 million a year. Then add the cost of renting and maintaining the studio, paying the casters and support staff, and there's also a probably a bunch of other miscellaneous costs that I can't think up. If LCS was overall profitable factoring in exposure/sales, I'm pretty sure Riot wouldn't hesitate to advertise that fact as loudly as possible since that would draw a ton of sponsors. Riot has said themselves time and again LCS loses them money. Unless there is proof it would be stupid to just assume that it loses them money. Can easily make the argument that riot say it loses them money just to be the martyrs that are saving esports.
lcs might (and probably does) lose money. and im almost positive riot is fine with that. the lcs might not be financially successful at this point, but it draws viewers by the hundreds of thousands if not millions. eventually, if this continues, it will make them money. and in the meantime, the sense of legitimacy it lends their game is worth quite a bit as well.
|
On November 22 2014 11:02 nafta wrote:
Unless there is proof it would be stupid to just assume that it loses them money.
Can easily make the argument that riot say it loses them money just to be the martyrs that are saving esports.
even if its not a direct lie for martyrdom (its most likely not)
it can easily be a half truth.
LCS doesn't bring very much income in directly, the 5k they bring in a night from ticket sales is definitely not enough to cover everything.
so yeah "LCS" operates at a loss. but they sell team icons, worlds skins, advertise skins in matches through the players, the announcers hype up players creating fanbases that continue to watch and want to replicate what they see, so they buy champions and rune pages, media write articles bringing more people into the game, they would have to pay for ads otherwise, LCS started while riot was in negotiations with tencent so who knows if they added to the acquisition costs for tencent, sponsors pay riot directly to advertise, we have no idea how much that makes them.
they can easily say LCS operates at a loss, but still profit from doing it.
On November 22 2014 11:06 Vaporized wrote:
you take such a narrow view of things. other sports behave in exactly the same ways. you can be punished in the nba and nfl for things that happened in assumed privacy, let alone in public.
riot started the LCS, riot funds the LCS, riot provides more money in salaries/prizes then most of the players could ever have dreamed of making playing a video game. is the system perfect? no. but, for now, riot calls the shots and i dont see that changing anytime soon.
when did other sports unionize? when the money started flowing, tv deals and sponsorships. the same will (potentially) happen one day in esports, but that time is not now.
This is just so rose colored its too hard to explain all the ways this is silly. Organization staff are not fined/managed by the leagues. they are managed internally within the team. Riot has fined staff of teams who don't actually do anything with the league team.
players make a ton of money from streaming/team/sponsorships so riot isn't the sole provider of cash, Nor does riot pay as much as some players can dream on making in other esports,
The way the current system works is far more like the NCAA running college football in america than any professional league. and you won't be able to find almost anyone who likes the way the NCAA handles that.
|
LCS just go straight to Riot's marketing cost. With revenue this high you bet Riot can spend 10 million dollars each year on LCS.
|
If the changes that going to the PBE on monday go through, Sejuani is dead. Why does Riot refuse this champion to ever be in meta?
|
On November 22 2014 11:02 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 10:52 Ryuu314 wrote:On November 22 2014 10:48 Amui wrote:On November 22 2014 10:45 Ryuu314 wrote:On November 22 2014 10:39 cLutZ wrote:On November 22 2014 09:56 Ryuu314 wrote:They should just revert the Cass rework already. On November 22 2014 09:13 TheYango wrote:
The more ridiculous part is that it includes the possibility of cross-regional team ownership (well, it actually has to in order to affect Alex Garfield at all) AND includes ALL potential Worlds-qualifying Leagues. Riot can't possibly expect it to be believable that they have the ability to maintain control over all possible indirect associations between the teams that encompasses. Riot wants LCS to be like major sports leagues. That is, one organization owns and controls one team (usually). The problem is that unlike major sports leagues, many teams don't do their own sponsorship searching. GGA does that for a bunch of teams, making it kind of an utterly pointless rule change since whoever controls the money controls the team (or at least exerts a shitton of influence over them). The issue I have with this is that the possibility of competitive integrity being questioned is WAYYY below the problem of inadequate support and compensation for players. This is true for every E-Sport, but particularly true for LOL below the top 4 in every scene. Its 10x easier for Riot to structure group stages and elimination stages of tournaments to avoid sister teams playing in a situation where they would want to collude then it is to find another Samsung, or another EG, etc. Maybe, but competitive integrity is the most visible and potentially damaging problem for any esport. Just look what happened to BW. Adequate support and compensation for players is something that can only come with more exposure and thus, money. LCS is already a financial black hole for Riot; if more money is needed, that can only come from people like Alex or companies like Coca-Cola. I doubt LCS cost outweighs the value it brings in terms of retention and sales. That value is hard to measure. Even if you could, I highly doubt it outweighs LCS costs. The teams alone cost Riot over 1.25 million a year. Then add the cost of renting and maintaining the studio, paying the casters and support staff, and there's also a probably a bunch of other miscellaneous costs that I can't think up. If LCS was overall profitable factoring in exposure/sales, I'm pretty sure Riot wouldn't hesitate to advertise that fact as loudly as possible since that would draw a ton of sponsors. Riot has said themselves time and again LCS loses them money. Unless there is proof it would be stupid to just assume that it loses them money. Can easily make the argument that riot say it loses them money just to be the martyrs that are saving esports.
It's also stupid to assume it makes them money from...what evidence?
We know (or can guess) how much LCS costs. LCS has no ad revenue, which is how broadcast programs typically get income.
Yes, it's undeniable that LCS retains players and boosts sales. But how much of that can be directly attributable to LCS? If LCS shuts down tomorrow, will Riot's income be affected? If so, how much? You can't really pin a number on that.
I'll re-word what I said earlier. As far as measurable and provable costs and benefits goes, LCS is a black hole.
On November 22 2014 11:08 PrinceXizor wrote:
LCS operates at a loss, but still profit from doing it. This is more or less what I'm trying to say.
Also, I'm pretty sure Riot makes very minimal advertising revenue. You claim sponsors pay Riot to advertise but outside of Coke Zero and that brief Pacific Rim ad last year, I haven't seen any third party advertising in LCS.
|
But dat dirty coke zero money!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
