|
On May 27 2017 02:07 Numy wrote:
It's hard to have depth when you have teams unwilling to put in the effort or make the hard decisions to improve. Looking at you Echo Fox. There's also this obsession with getting old talent who don't really cut it anymore in over newer guys constantly.
Teams don't want to take the risk on new talent when relegation exists. NA slots actually sell for something.
|
On May 27 2017 04:10 Sent. wrote:
That rule was removed
Well that seems incredibly stupid
|
On May 27 2017 04:26 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 02:07 Numy wrote:
It's hard to have depth when you have teams unwilling to put in the effort or make the hard decisions to improve. Looking at you Echo Fox. There's also this obsession with getting old talent who don't really cut it anymore in over newer guys constantly. Teams don't want to take the risk on new talent when relegation exists. NA slots actually sell for something.
Honestly relegation is just a massive excuse. NA teams have always favoured name over talent even before LCS even existed. The slots sell for a lot yet last split there was basically no good team in CS that could take a slot. Languishing in nothing, trying to do nothing but just stay out until franchising is so utterly pathetic.
|
On May 27 2017 06:28 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 04:26 Gahlo wrote:On May 27 2017 02:07 Numy wrote:
It's hard to have depth when you have teams unwilling to put in the effort or make the hard decisions to improve. Looking at you Echo Fox. There's also this obsession with getting old talent who don't really cut it anymore in over newer guys constantly. Teams don't want to take the risk on new talent when relegation exists. NA slots actually sell for something. Honestly relegation is just a massive excuse. NA teams have always favoured name over talent even before LCS even existed. The slots sell for a lot yet last split there was basically no good team in CS that could take a slot. Languishing in nothing, trying to do nothing but just stay out until franchising is so utterly pathetic.
Pre-LCS wasn't long enough to definitive find out who would always be shit forever. I have seen LCS owners say that they don't take risks on unproven talent because relegation fucks you. You get relegated and you're done in League.
|
On May 27 2017 07:14 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 06:28 Numy wrote:On May 27 2017 04:26 Gahlo wrote:On May 27 2017 02:07 Numy wrote:
It's hard to have depth when you have teams unwilling to put in the effort or make the hard decisions to improve. Looking at you Echo Fox. There's also this obsession with getting old talent who don't really cut it anymore in over newer guys constantly. Teams don't want to take the risk on new talent when relegation exists. NA slots actually sell for something. Honestly relegation is just a massive excuse. NA teams have always favoured name over talent even before LCS even existed. The slots sell for a lot yet last split there was basically no good team in CS that could take a slot. Languishing in nothing, trying to do nothing but just stay out until franchising is so utterly pathetic. Pre-LCS wasn't long enough to definitive find out who would always be shit forever. I have seen LCS owners say that they don't take risks on unproven talent because relegation fucks you. You get relegated and you're done in League.
Dignitas is the only NA team I can remember that was relegated and came back.
|
On May 27 2017 10:50 lilwisper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 07:14 Gahlo wrote:On May 27 2017 06:28 Numy wrote:On May 27 2017 04:26 Gahlo wrote:On May 27 2017 02:07 Numy wrote:
It's hard to have depth when you have teams unwilling to put in the effort or make the hard decisions to improve. Looking at you Echo Fox. There's also this obsession with getting old talent who don't really cut it anymore in over newer guys constantly. Teams don't want to take the risk on new talent when relegation exists. NA slots actually sell for something. Honestly relegation is just a massive excuse. NA teams have always favoured name over talent even before LCS even existed. The slots sell for a lot yet last split there was basically no good team in CS that could take a slot. Languishing in nothing, trying to do nothing but just stay out until franchising is so utterly pathetic. Pre-LCS wasn't long enough to definitive find out who would always be shit forever. I have seen LCS owners say that they don't take risks on unproven talent because relegation fucks you. You get relegated and you're done in League. Dignitas is the only NA team I can remember that was relegated and came back.
And even then, they didn't really. They got bought out along with Apex, who was in LCS, and got renamed. According to Jack and Noah, sponsors offer less money to teams because of the risk of relegations and once you're out of the LCS they don't want to touch you.
|
Complaining of relegations when you have all the tools and a tremendously unfair advantage over the challenger teams in both practice quality and stage experience seems childish to me. It's ok, these are big investments, they are worried about losing them that's fine, but complaining and pushing franchising citing this as the "big" reason is bullshit.
If somebody pushes you out of LCS and gets your spot 99% they deserved it, c9-challenger-like fiascos should be regulated, but that is another story and has more to do with riot ruling than with the format itself.
|
|
|
On May 27 2017 23:59 JimmiC wrote:
Any word on what liquids roster will be next split?
Lourlo, ReignOver, Goldenglue, Piglet, Matt.
|
|
|
I think if the meta stays close to the MSI meta (it won't) TL could be in good shape. Any comp that puts Piglet on a Twitch/Kog/Vayne style hyper carry and everyone else protecting him could work out super well. Its a shame its probably not going to stay that way though
|
On May 28 2017 09:32 chipmonklord17 wrote:
I think if the meta stays close to the MSI meta (it won't) TL could be in good shape. Any comp that puts Piglet on a Twitch/Kog/Vayne style hyper carry and everyone else protecting him could work out super well. Its a shame its probably not going to stay that way though
My best hope for TL comes from them learning the value of following the calls of a shotcaller, as a team, without hesitation- which we saw glimpses of during DL's vacation on the team. If they improve on this, then they should make playoffs.
|
My hope is they trick Goldenglue into thinking he's just playing soloQ on stage.
|
meta should be good for TL so i dont think they will be relegation tier like last split
big meta buffs for piglet/ro the most important players on the team
|
On May 27 2017 10:54 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 10:50 lilwisper wrote:On May 27 2017 07:14 Gahlo wrote:On May 27 2017 06:28 Numy wrote:On May 27 2017 04:26 Gahlo wrote:On May 27 2017 02:07 Numy wrote:
It's hard to have depth when you have teams unwilling to put in the effort or make the hard decisions to improve. Looking at you Echo Fox. There's also this obsession with getting old talent who don't really cut it anymore in over newer guys constantly. Teams don't want to take the risk on new talent when relegation exists. NA slots actually sell for something. Honestly relegation is just a massive excuse. NA teams have always favoured name over talent even before LCS even existed. The slots sell for a lot yet last split there was basically no good team in CS that could take a slot. Languishing in nothing, trying to do nothing but just stay out until franchising is so utterly pathetic. Pre-LCS wasn't long enough to definitive find out who would always be shit forever. I have seen LCS owners say that they don't take risks on unproven talent because relegation fucks you. You get relegated and you're done in League. Dignitas is the only NA team I can remember that was relegated and came back. And even then, they didn't really. They got bought out along with Apex, who was in LCS, and got renamed. According to Jack and Noah, sponsors offer less money to teams because of the risk of relegations and once you're out of the LCS they don't want to touch you.
Consider the source there. These are people trying to obtain leverage in a situation where they have none.
|
On May 30 2017 04:50 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2017 10:54 Gahlo wrote:On May 27 2017 10:50 lilwisper wrote:On May 27 2017 07:14 Gahlo wrote:On May 27 2017 06:28 Numy wrote:On May 27 2017 04:26 Gahlo wrote:On May 27 2017 02:07 Numy wrote:
It's hard to have depth when you have teams unwilling to put in the effort or make the hard decisions to improve. Looking at you Echo Fox. There's also this obsession with getting old talent who don't really cut it anymore in over newer guys constantly. Teams don't want to take the risk on new talent when relegation exists. NA slots actually sell for something. Honestly relegation is just a massive excuse. NA teams have always favoured name over talent even before LCS even existed. The slots sell for a lot yet last split there was basically no good team in CS that could take a slot. Languishing in nothing, trying to do nothing but just stay out until franchising is so utterly pathetic. Pre-LCS wasn't long enough to definitive find out who would always be shit forever. I have seen LCS owners say that they don't take risks on unproven talent because relegation fucks you. You get relegated and you're done in League. Dignitas is the only NA team I can remember that was relegated and came back. And even then, they didn't really. They got bought out along with Apex, who was in LCS, and got renamed. According to Jack and Noah, sponsors offer less money to teams because of the risk of relegations and once you're out of the LCS they don't want to touch you. Consider the source there. These are people trying to obtain leverage in a situation where they have none.
Teams are already capable of making much more money with other games. The longer NA LCS stays out of franchising, the more games will be more profitable and ultimately garner more organizational attention.
League isn't the golden ticket for Western esports orgs like it used to be.
|
Revenue sharing doesn't have to be linked to franchising. The LCS costs so much mainly due to all these people banking on getting indefinite ticket in the future. If Riot just said it's not happening ever maybe the costs wouldn't be so insanely inflated. From the outside it just seems like ridiculously silly investments are going on here but who knows maybe in 10 years time the massive money they dumping will have come back to them.
Essentially NA LCS teams mostly forsake building sustainable business in this mad scramble to get locked in so they can take it easy afterwards. It's all kinds of silly.
|
On May 30 2017 05:45 Gahlo wrote:
Teams are already capable of making much more money with other games. The longer NA LCS stays out of franchising, the more games will be more profitable and ultimately garner more organizational attention.
League isn't the golden ticket for Western esports orgs like it used to be.
Teams making more money from other games is a direct result of the LCS model and intentional decisions made by Riot. Franchising is meaningless to how much teams make. Riot could 10x the money it pays to teams with or without franchising. This is the only way for teams to make money off of League because Riot insists on maintaining control over basically all productions. In other words, franchising will not change the amount of money team make off League, it will just change which teams end up making that money.
Its really just a fundamental misunderstanding of why franchising, and league formats even exist in pro sports (where the league is owned by the franchises by the way). Franchises exist to keep local monopolies over fanbases intact. LCS does not have this, in fact all of its team compete for the same fans. League formats exist to generate gate sales for those local teams (thus also not sensible in LCS where Riot makes very little on gate).
|
On May 30 2017 06:02 Numy wrote:
Revenue sharing doesn't have to be linked to franchising. The LCS costs so much mainly due to all these people banking on getting indefinite ticket in the future. If Riot just said it's not happening ever maybe the costs wouldn't be so insanely inflated. From the outside it just seems like ridiculously silly investments are going on here but who knows maybe in 10 years time the massive money they dumping will have come back to them.
Essentially NA LCS teams mostly forsake building sustainable business in this mad scramble to get locked in so they can take it easy afterwards. It's all kinds of silly.
Yes, they don't need franchising for revenue sharing. That is absolutely true. VC investors are getting in on it because they think waiting out until franchising comes in is worth the short term expense. If it goes longer and loger without happening then the VC will start pulling out. We saw that already with Ember, where their backers pulled out because they didn't want to spot another (I think it was) half million for another split of challenger which nobody watch and no sponsors care about.
So if all the VC pull out, then the teams will need revenue sharing. Riot has shown 0 interest in doing so as of yet outside of the stipend, which is laughable compared to when it was put in place. Hell, Riot doesn't even open it up to large revenue stream in general. How long ago was it that LCS was sponsored by Coke? When was the last time they did advertisements like they used to do for the start of a GoT season or a big movie? The LCS broadcast is on message at all times, League of Legends for the sake of League of Legends.
On May 30 2017 06:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 05:45 Gahlo wrote:
Teams are already capable of making much more money with other games. The longer NA LCS stays out of franchising, the more games will be more profitable and ultimately garner more organizational attention.
League isn't the golden ticket for Western esports orgs like it used to be. Teams making more money from other games is a direct result of the LCS model and intentional decisions made by Riot. Franchising is meaningless to how much teams make. Riot could 10x the money it pays to teams with or without franchising. This is the only way for teams to make money off of League because Riot insists on maintaining control over basically all productions. In other words, franchising will not change the amount of money team make off League, it will just change which teams end up making that money. Its really just a fundamental misunderstanding of why franchising, and league formats even exist in pro sports (where the league is owned by the franchises by the way). Franchises exist to keep local monopolies over fanbases intact. LCS does not have this, in fact all of its team compete for the same fans. League formats exist to generate gate sales for those local teams (thus also not sensible in LCS where Riot makes very little on gate).
Teams have outright said that sponsors are less willing to pay more where a bad split suddenly has that investment no longer in the competitive scene. As a result, less successful teams like EnvyUs are already more likely to get passed up for better teams like TSM and C9 in addition to the risk of that team not existing in a relevant manner. Hell, the only reason TSM is able to survive without being a VC team(and the only one afaik) is because they have the largest fanbase, are never worse than a top 2 team in playoffs, and go to most international tournaments. Even then, they're basically capped on what they can do. Look at TL/Curse, they were never a low tier team and made playoffs every split, but this time they collapsed hard out of the blue and probably only exist in League today because TSM/Doublelift was willing to make a deal.
There's a lot of talk about how western orgs need to get better, but there is no avenue to do that. There is no stability for investors with the existence of relegations and there is no room for growth when a lack of revenue sharing limits their ability to do that.
As a last note, comparing franchising of LCS to sports is a silly idea anyway. The NFL isn't the sole proprieter of footballs and football equipment. NFL doesn't own football. Same way MLB doesn't own baseball, NHL doesn't own hockey, MLS doesn't own soccer, and the NBA doesn't own basketball. Riot don't need to make a killing at the gate, because if people are watching LCS they're viewing afternoon long advertisements for it and probably talking about it.
|
Aside from the part where you seemingly 100% buy the line from teams about sponsors lowballing because of the risk of relegation (as if contracts can't have contingencies built in that give higher comp levels if they remain in LCS), all the points you make are basically Franchising-Neutral or Anti-Franchising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
