EPTgranted this requires good analysts to go through vods and whatnot of others and the ability to apply that into your in house scrims.
2017 Esports General Discussion - Page 2
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
Kaneh
Canada737 Posts
granted this requires good analysts to go through vods and whatnot of others and the ability to apply that into your in house scrims. | ||
|
Skitter
United States899 Posts
| ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
The issue with comparing gaming to sports is that generally athletes have been playing said sport for most of their lives. The very basics are already ingrained through decades of play. Gaming doesn't last long enough to have that kind of thing. We only really see it in games like CS at this point. Sports also tend have more predictable play patterns that teams and players can go over throughout the game. Sure the small things change but the overall strategy isn't something that can radically change match to match. Games like League and Dota have so many elements to them that each game can be drastically different to the next. Anyway I'm not saying more controlled "drill" type practice is bad, merely it's wrong to just compare directly. I'll be interested to see how gaming practices change over the decades to come. I know in games like CS they do "drill" type sessions where they just execute the exact same strategy for all 15 rounds then review how it went afterwards. They also do stuff like grenade/smoke/flashbang practicing. Dota guys do mid practice as well(or at least used to idk anymore) where it was just mid laners playing each other to test out matchups. | ||
NeoIllusions
United States37500 Posts
Akaadian has been looking really good. Kinda reminds me a little of Meteos when C9 first arrived. Knows where he needs to be to secure kills early and is actually a threat from the Jungle position. I think he has a very good chance at Rookie of the Split. l0l Keith, hopefully EF can find a serviceable ADC if they want to make a run for Worlds. | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On February 03 2017 22:59 Ansibled wrote: EFX doesn't get scrims because they tried to poach everyone's players with Riot's encouragement, other LCS teams are understandably bitter. Is there actually proof that that is why, or is this just the reasoning reddit made up? | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
On February 03 2017 23:07 Gahlo wrote: Is there actually proof that that is why, or is this just the reasoning reddit made up? I don't know how much proof there is, but this is what happened. There is an article on it if that helps. http://www.thescoreesports.com/lol/news/11935-sources-echo-fox-tried-to-poach-adrian-from-phoenix1 | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On February 03 2017 23:11 Ansibled wrote: I don't know how much proof there is, but this is what happened. There is an article on it if that helps. http://www.thescoreesports.com/lol/news/11935-sources-echo-fox-tried-to-poach-adrian-from-phoenix1 I'm not questioning the alleged poaching, but the assertion that that is why they aren't getting scrims. | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
On February 03 2017 23:17 Gahlo wrote: I'm not questioning the alleged poaching, but the assertion that that is why they aren't getting scrims. Do you want me to point out the speciifc line in the article that claims that or what? | ||
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On February 03 2017 22:59 Ansibled wrote: EFX doesn't get scrims because they tried to poach everyone's players with Riot's encouragement, other LCS teams are understandably bitter. Do you have a source for the "Riot's encouragement" part, since my understanding was that EF's conduct was subsequently cleared by Riot, not that it was cleared in advance by Riot? Also, it's hard to have sympathy for P1 here because the rules pretty clearly say it ain't poaching until you submit the contract to the database. Public announcements don't mean a whole lot - IMT tweeted out pictures of IMT Piccaboo and IMT Gorilla jerseys too. EF's conduct was kinda skeevy, but the rules are the rules, and it's hard to believe an organization like CLG is really all that concerned about poaching rules. It's basically as if EF hit on a woman that he had heard got married, but the woman didn't have a ring on and there wasn't a wedding license in the office. Really, though, the justification for boycotting EF scrims is suuuuper thin. Like, CLG unquestionably poached Darshan, got a slap on the wrist by Riot, but they still get scrims, no? What is the more likely possibility? That for the first time in NA LCS history, teams suddenly SUPER care about enforcing poaching rules, despite having been past poachers themselves, or that they are all annoyed at the one team that did not sign the franchising letter? | ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
On February 03 2017 23:33 GrandInquisitor wrote: Do you have a source for the "Riot's encouragement" part, since my understanding was that EF's conduct was subsequently cleared by Riot, not that it was cleared in advance by Riot? Also, it's hard to have sympathy for P1 here because the rules pretty clearly say it ain't poaching until you submit the contract to the database. Public announcements don't mean a whole lot - IMT tweeted out pictures of IMT Piccaboo and IMT Gorilla jerseys too. EF's conduct was kinda skeevy, but the rules are the rules, and it's hard to believe an organization like CLG is really all that concerned about poaching rules. It's basically as if EF hit on a woman that he had heard got married, but the woman didn't have a ring on and there wasn't a wedding license in the office. Really, though, the justification for boycotting EF scrims is suuuuper thin. Like, CLG unquestionably poached Darshan, got a slap on the wrist by Riot, but they still get scrims, no? What is the more likely possibility? That for the first time in NA LCS history, teams suddenly SUPER care about enforcing poaching rules, despite having been past poachers themselves, or that they are all annoyed at the one team that did not sign the franchising letter? http://esportsobserver.com/sources-na-lcs-teams-sign-riots-2017-lcs-agreement-under-threats-of-league-approved-poaching-and-sale-cancellation/ CLG really isn't a good org, but that was also 2 years ago. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
| ||
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On February 03 2017 23:40 Ansibled wrote: http://esportsobserver.com/sources-na-lcs-teams-sign-riots-2017-lcs-agreement-under-threats-of-league-approved-poaching-and-sale-cancellation/ CLG really isn't a good org, but that was also 2 years ago. Thanks. But that article doesn't make much sense. It's saying that Riot threatened to deny non-signing teams LCS poaching protection and the right to sell their LCS spot. But ... if you aren't in LCS, why would you be protected by LCS poaching rules? How would you have an LCS spot to sell? It's kind of illogical. It's like a tenant accusing his landlord of saying, "If you don't renew your lease, I won't let you sublet it." It sounds like something someone pretty dumb made up for attention. That, plus the fact that no one has subsequently come back with proof of this conversation after Riot flat denied it, makes me believe that the article is just a salty owner. | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On February 03 2017 22:59 Ansibled wrote: EFX doesn't get scrims because they tried to poach everyone's players with Riot's encouragement, other LCS teams are understandably bitter. You are taking the orgs word for fact here, I dont see a reason for that. Actually you even exaggerate the orgs claims by saying they tried to poach from everyone. Imo the punishment seems a little hard for the alleged crime and I believe there is more to it. Imo it is part of a bigger rift between Echo Fox and other orgs (especially TSM) that started at the latest with the EF Visa issues after Regi's Visa tweet. I remember some Rick Fox interview how he said that this was all unfair, that he gets there is competition but this was too much, kinda alleging he has been misinformed by other owners regarding Visas etc. There might have been a lot of back and forth behind the scenes from then on, maybe even before that. This then probably lead to EF not signing the letter which lead to the rift deepening even more and EF getting the scrim ban. I think it is also fair to assume that there was pressure from some orgs to others to participate in the ban. Of course you can also fit an evil Riot narrative in there if you want. Like they might have tried to use the disagreements between LCS teams to try to break up the teams' united front for franchising etc., for example by being more lenient with the alleged poaching by EF. In the end a lot of speculation and almost impossible to know what is going on behind the scenes. But imo the Visa stuff and the non-signing of the letter are bigger issues between EF and the others than the possible poaching. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On February 04 2017 00:20 GrandInquisitor wrote: Thanks. But that article doesn't make much sense. It's saying that Riot threatened to deny non-signing teams LCS poaching protection and the right to sell their LCS spot. But ... if you aren't in LCS, why would you be protected by LCS poaching rules? How would you have an LCS spot to sell? It's kind of illogical. It's like a tenant accusing his landlord of saying, "If you don't renew your lease, I won't let you sublet it." It sounds like something someone pretty dumb made up for attention. That, plus the fact that no one has subsequently come back with proof of this conversation after Riot flat denied it, makes me believe that the article is just a salty owner. Yea the whole situation is kind of weird and doesn't make much sense. At the end of the day we know that there's the 3 big dogs of TL/C9/TSM that bully/dictate everything to everyone else and if you aren't with them then you don't exist. A more plausible explanation than the "poaching" thing is that there's friction between EF and one of those 3 which lead to the situation of them either telling everyone else to cut EF off or they merely cut EF off while others followed suite to try get in with the club. I'm quite the anti-Riot guy but man NA owners are so dodgy it's really hard to believe anything they say. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
With the owners letter, Riot isn't having a discussion. The teams, minus EF, said "I want this." and Riot responded with "No, now sign this or get the fuck out/risk your players getting stolen while I turn my back." Riot is clearly in the wrong on this point. EF has clearly sided with Riot against the other teams and is paying for it. | ||
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On February 04 2017 01:16 Gahlo wrote: With the owners letter, Riot isn't having a discussion. The teams, minus EF, said "I want this." and Riot responded with "No, now sign this or get the fuck out/risk your players getting stolen while I turn my back." Riot is clearly in the wrong on this point. EF has clearly sided with Riot against the other teams and is paying for it. Whether not franchising is good for LCS is a completely different discussion. Riot might be wrong here. There are obvious stability benefits. But I distrust what the team owners say because they are hopelessly biased in that regard. What I find bizarre here is your suggestion that "Riot is clearly in the wrong" because of Riot's threats to the teams. Those threats obviously are not real threats and are obviously something someone made up if you take half a second to think about it. Why would Riot to threaten to kick a team out of LCS if they refuse to join LCS? Why would Riot threaten not to enforce LCS rules if they refuse to join LCS? That is like threatening your girlfriend "if you break up with me I won't let you date me any more!" Or if a tenant said "My landlord threatened to kick me out if I won't renew my lease". We call that Counter Logic Negotiating. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35172 Posts
On February 04 2017 01:53 GrandInquisitor wrote: Whether not franchising is good for LCS is a completely different discussion. Riot might be wrong here. There are obvious stability benefits. But I distrust what the team owners say because they are hopelessly biased in that regard. What I find bizarre here is your suggestion that "Riot is clearly in the wrong" because of Riot's threats to the teams. Those threats obviously are not real threats and are obviously something someone made up if you take half a second to think about it. Why would Riot to threaten to kick a team out of LCS if they refuse to join LCS? Why would Riot threaten not to enforce LCS rules if they refuse to join LCS? That is like threatening your girlfriend "if you break up with me I won't let you date me any more!" Or if a tenant said "My landlord threatened to kick me out if I won't renew my lease". We call that Counter Logic Negotiating. LCS is an advertising tool for League. Riot's "we don't make any money on the LCS" is a technicality and they know it. The teams are what makes the LCS. If all the teams decided to leave the league, the LCS would be dreadful. I'm not saying that Riot should just bend over to the teams' demands, but they should at least have dialogue. From everything that I've seen, there has been 0 negotiating at all from Riot - just an ultimatum. These threats are obviously real considering EF's actions being overlooked. I don't think it's a coincidence that Adrian's contract just happened to not be in the database and EF knew that as long as it wasn't, they had the go ahead to try and interfere with a player that was legally signed, under law. Riot could threaten to remove teams because they're the only show in town. No other competition will give the teams a similar level of visibility and stipend - something the teams need because of the anemic situation of the scene for League. Your analogy is poor. It's more along the lines of going to your girlfriend and saying "Hey, I've been paying all the rent for a while and I need you to cover your share." and have her come back saying "No, I'm not going to pay and you're going to deal with it or I'm leaving you and keeping the apartment." | ||
|
Redox
Germany24794 Posts
On February 04 2017 01:16 Gahlo wrote: When it comes to the visa issues, I'm gonna leave this here: With the owners letter, Riot isn't having a discussion. The teams, minus EF, said "I want this." and Riot responded with "No, now sign this or get the fuck out/risk your players getting stolen while I turn my back." Riot is clearly in the wrong on this point. EF has clearly sided with Riot against the other teams and is paying for it. Of course Regi might have been right with the Visa stuff. It is also possible that he did not warn other owners as he could have and left them out to dry. In any case my point was that Rick Fox felt wronged and that this was the origin of the rift between them. Regarding Riot "clearly" being wrong, well for me they are not. For one I do no "support" the teams' letter and I am not in favor of franchising. But even if I did I would still fully understand Riot trying to shut down the teams' ambitions. It is their league after all why would they accept someone else basically taking it over? Especially as this is attempted in a pretty hostile manner. In the end it is just a matter of conflicting interests and both sides being understandable. But I still very much resent the treatment of Echo Fox because they do not share other teams' opinion. And it is a little ominous sign to how teams would treat other teams with dissenting opinions or interests in the future once they get their way with the franchising and they have much more of a say. On February 04 2017 02:33 Gahlo wrote: Your analogy is poor. It's more along the lines of going to your girlfriend and saying "Hey, I've been paying all the rent for a while and I need you to cover your share." and have her come back saying "No, I'm not going to pay and you're going to deal with it or I'm leaving you and keeping the apartment." Except so far Riot paid the teams and not the other way around. Of course some teams have been overspending which I believe is partly due to speculating towards being rewarded with the franchise later and partly due to investors with too much money caring too little. I think this is the issue of the spenders though and does not obligate Riot to make the speculations come true. Although I agree that the revenue options for the teams have been limited too much by Riot. | ||
|
GrandInquisitor
New York City13113 Posts
On February 04 2017 02:33 Gahlo wrote: LCS is an advertising tool for League. Riot's "we don't make any money on the LCS" is a technicality and they know it. The teams are what makes the LCS. If all the teams decided to leave the league, the LCS would be dreadful. I'm not saying that Riot should just bend over to the teams' demands, but they should at least have dialogue. From everything that I've seen, there has been 0 negotiating at all from Riot - just an ultimatum. These threats are obviously real considering EF's actions being overlooked. I don't think it's a coincidence that Adrian's contract just happened to not be in the database and EF knew that as long as it wasn't, they had the go ahead to try and interfere with a player that was legally signed, under law. Riot could threaten to remove teams because they're the only show in town. No other competition will give the teams a similar level of visibility and stipend - something the teams need because of the anemic situation of the scene for League. Your analogy is poor. It's more along the lines of going to your girlfriend and saying "Hey, I've been paying all the rent for a while and I need you to cover your share." and have her come back saying "No, I'm not going to pay and you're going to deal with it or I'm leaving you and keeping the apartment." I understand your reasoning but you are starting from the wrong assumptions. Let's start with this: These threats are obviously real considering EF's actions being overlooked. I don't think it's a coincidence that Adrian's contract just happened to not be in the database and EF knew that as long as it wasn't, they had the go ahead to try and interfere with a player that was legally signed, under law. You talk about "legally signed, under law" as if poaching was a state or federal offense. It is not. It is solely defined with reference to LCS. It is a true fact that Adrian was signed to P1 when EF approached Adrian. It is also a true fact that Adrian's contract was not in the database when EF approached Adrian. The offense of poaching, as defined by LCS, is approaching a player with a database contract. Those two facts therefore fail to state a claim that EF poached Adrian. You also offer some weird conspiracy theory that Riot kept the contract out of the database. Every article I have read says that teams upload contracts to the database themselves. P1 has never stated, to my knowledge, that they uploaded the contract before Adrian was approached. So I see no evidence for that theory. The way you SHOULD be thinking about it is that Riot offers poaching protection. To qualify for poaching protection, you have to submit your contract to the database. If you don't, you don't get that protection. P1 is sad they didn't get the protection, but they can blame no one other than themselves for it. Basically, imagine a world in which you aren't a part of LCS. Someone poaches your player. You're shit out of luck and have literally no recourse. Riot offers, as a benefit of you joining LCS, to go after the poachers if you are in LCS. If you choose not to join LCS, then, well, why would Riot go after those poachers? Would you expect Riot to go after poachers in CS:GO? LCS is an advertising tool for League. Riot's "we don't make any money on the LCS" is a technicality and they know it. The teams are what makes the LCS. If all the teams decided to leave the league, the LCS would be dreadful. I'm not saying that Riot should just bend over to the teams' demands, but they should at least have dialogue. From everything that I've seen, there has been 0 negotiating at all from Riot - just an ultimatum. ... Riot could threaten to remove teams because they're the only show in town. No other competition will give the teams a similar level of visibility and stipend - something the teams need because of the anemic situation of the scene for League. Your initial assertion was that Riot threatened to remove teams from LCS if they didn't agree to join LCS. If you don't see how idiotic that sounds, I can't really help you there. It is true that you cannot field a League team without being in LCS. That sucks for you, maybe, if you hate Riot (cough, MonteCristo), but at the end of the day, it's their game, not yours. They have the right to exclude you. You don't have some constitutional right to participate in LCS. You are correct of course that LCS needs the teams. But it is clear that the teams need LCS more. How do I know that? Because the teams accepted Riot's terms. Assuming the truth of everything you said, all I see is a contractual negotiation between two sophisticated parties. One party (Riot) needed the other (the teams), but the teams needed Riot more, and so the teams caved. That's life, and if you feel bad for the teams, well, tough shit, they decided being in LCS was more important to them than not being in LCS. Riot has total control over LCS because it's their game. Should Riot divest its control of LCS? That's like saying, I got unfairly banned by TeamLiquid moderators, therefore TeamLiquid should be forced to sell its forum to an independent third party and let them make all the forum disciplinary decisions. And even if you were 100% correct, and some TeamLiquid moderator unfairly banned you, Nazgul would probably laugh and take a shit on your face. Because it's their forum, not yours. They try not to unfairly ban people, because it's bad for business, but to the extent you disagree with their decisions, you are free to start your own website. Your analogy is poor. It's more along the lines of going to your girlfriend and saying "Hey, I've been paying all the rent for a while and I need you to cover your share." and have her come back saying "No, I'm not going to pay and you're going to deal with it or I'm leaving you and keeping the apartment." I think you just made up an analogy because it supports you and not because it bears any relation to the facts of the case. In your analogy, your girlfriend owns the apartment. So uh, yeah, if you break up with her, then you don't get to live in it any more. You also don't get the protections and benefits from being in that apartment. I don't see how that's wrong in any way. You might WANT to live in that apartment on better terms, but at the end of the day, you don't get to decide on what terms you want to live there, she does, because it's her place. And again - this isn't about whether or not Riot actually made the threat. They denied it, no one has contradicted it. This is about how idiotic it is to claim "Riot threatened to not let me play in LCS if I didn't sign up for LCS". | ||
| ||
