Are you joking? What do you think would happen if two football (soccer) teams decided to play without goalies in a tournament match because they thought it would be funny? The rules technically don't state that the goalies have to be in the goal, they could just stand to the side or run onto the main pitch and play with the outfield players. I can tell you now that there would be hell to pay if they tried something like that, they'd be kicked out of the tournament in a heartbeat and whoever organized the whole thing would probably barred for life from the sport.
I would very much like to see that, because in football the players can sue the shit out of their governing body if they do something like that because, as noted, there are clear guidelines on what a team can and cannot be punished/banned for. 'making up new rules' isn't one of them, primarily because most sports with an actual pedigree acknowledge that it happens from time to time.
There's a reason soccer's rules get amended every so often, and it's because people actually do stuff like this semiregularly, though often it is less formal (eg, one team decides it doesn't need a goalie, and the other side also does so, they nod and wink and suddenly there is no goalie. If someone went back and suddenly became goalie again, everyone would look at them as if they were cheating because, essentially, they are. This is how new rules are made within the magic circle). I admit, the finals of a tournament is an odd place to see it, but it still happens in competition here and there. People get upset, rules get changed. That's all that happens, at least in sports with a genuine governing body like the ICC or FIFA.
On August 28 2012 10:59 misirlou wrote: All the SC fans coming to shit on LoL. Go watch your 6 pool finals, coin toss PvP's, old 4 gates, proxy rax and all the other cheese i cant remember. Were those 1 games during a Final Series that much different from ARAM?
Are you serious?
"Were those games where a risky but valid strategy that did not alter the rules of the game that much different from players decided to change the rules of the game they were playing in the finals of a tournament?"
Except it isn't up to the players at all. It is up to those putting up the money for the competition, i.e. the tournament organizers, in this case MLG.
you misunderstand. Tournament organisers and all are free to ban things and make rules and so on, but they can't stop players making up NEW rules and following those, other than amending their ruleset to ban each new rule/restriction as it comes up.
In this circumstance they can, of course, do whatever the fuck they so choose because Esports players have as mentioned no rights, no appeal potential and very little experience in applying leverage to the companies they work for. Like I said, all it would take would be for the top 10 teams in the world to boycott the next couple of circuit tournaments requesting (among other things) a clear and standardised ruleset, non exploitative contracts (IE one that doesn't say 'we can do whatever we want to you if you participate, and you have absolutely no say, sorry') and a right of appeal and you would be laughing at just how many crows would be eaten. Like seriously. Fiddlesticks ult doesn't even come close.
You're prelaw, yes? Or a philosophy major? You argue like one.
Players can't make up new rules TOGETHER with players from other teams. That's collusion by definition, and it can be (and was) banned by the tournament organizers.
Are you joking? What do you think would happen if two football (soccer) teams decided to play without goalies in a tournament match because they thought it would be funny? The rules technically don't state that the goalies have to be in the goal, they could just stand to the side or run onto the main pitch and play with the outfield players. I can tell you now that there would be hell to pay if they tried something like that, they'd be kicked out of the tournament in a heartbeat and whoever organized the whole thing would probably barred for life from the sport.
I would very much like to see that, because in football the players can sue the shit out of their governing body if they do something like that because, as noted, there are clear guidelines on what a team can and cannot be punished/banned for. 'making up new rules' isn't one of them, primarily because most sports with an actual pedigree acknowledge that it happens from time to time.
There's a reason soccer's rules get amended every so often, and it's because people actually do stuff like this semiregularly, though often it is less formal (eg, one team decides it doesn't need a goalie, and the other side also does so, they nod and wink and suddenly there is no goalie. If someone went back and suddenly became goalie again, everyone would look at them as if they were cheating because, essentially, they are. This is how new rules are made within the magic circle). I admit, the finals of a tournament is an odd place to see it, but it still happens in competition here and there. People get upset, rules get changed. That's all that happens, at least in sports with a genuine governing body like the ICC or FIFA.
There is a monumental difference between a team doing something odd and the other team responding with the same though. That's not the issue. The problem is when the teams collude before the game to change the rules of the game. Show me one example of this happening in a professional sport in the last 50 years, where both teams agreed to a new set of rules before the game, without blessing of the tournament organizers/governing body and during a major tournament without serious repercussions for the teams/players involved. I could be wrong but I just can't see it happening.
On August 28 2012 03:24 kainzero wrote: i don't see what the big deal is with anything at this tournament.
S2 regionals are next week. both teams want to be super safe and not bust out any hidden strats. ARAM eliminates one game where they don't have to play conventional.
competition-wise, the fans should know regionals are next week too. they know there's a trade-off between giving it your all now, or saving it.
this is similar to games at the end of a sports season where they put subs in when they have a guaranteed bye in the first round and they don't want to injure their starters for the playoffs. sure, they could win the conference title, but they would disappoint their fans if they lost their star quarterback to an injury in a "meaningless" game.
The ARAM in itself isn't the problem. The problem is that they coordinated themselfes/collude (whatever you want to call it) with the enemy team and furthermore agreed to a set of unsanctioned rules.
The correct analogy would be if both teams would have played sub-optimal strategies while still giving it their best.
Also these subs actually get a chance to prove themselves as well as play in a real game which allows the coach to better evaluate those people. They are usually highly motivated. This is their chance outside of practice to prove/promote themselves.
I've seen this analogy frequently in the SC2 forum part and it is extremely poor, but it just keeps on poping up.
Thank you! So many people seem to be totally missing this point. Nobody is saying that teams aren't allowed to play ARAM, they just can't agree to it beforehand. Teams are allowed to play any strategy they want (though playing sub-optimally would draw a lot of flak too) but discussing what you will do with the other team is a huge no no.
If both teams agreed to ban certain champions outside the game (say adding 2 additional bans per team), proceeded to play standard games, and were then found out by MLG I would expect the same action. Doesn't matter if they were trying hard in game, they set up additional rules outside those provided by the game and the tournament organizers and that's just something you don't do in a serious competition. Ever.
What about a few years ago when phelps told another swimmer (forgot his name, but he was somewhat of a rival) to not wear a certain swimsuit that, during that time, gave a huge boost to swimmers. And i mean huge. I think it was a chinese guy, he first wore it and there was a huge (unusually huge) gap between him and second place. Nobody gave him flak for colluding.
On August 28 2012 03:24 kainzero wrote: i don't see what the big deal is with anything at this tournament.
S2 regionals are next week. both teams want to be super safe and not bust out any hidden strats. ARAM eliminates one game where they don't have to play conventional.
competition-wise, the fans should know regionals are next week too. they know there's a trade-off between giving it your all now, or saving it.
this is similar to games at the end of a sports season where they put subs in when they have a guaranteed bye in the first round and they don't want to injure their starters for the playoffs. sure, they could win the conference title, but they would disappoint their fans if they lost their star quarterback to an injury in a "meaningless" game.
The ARAM in itself isn't the problem. The problem is that they coordinated themselfes/collude (whatever you want to call it) with the enemy team and furthermore agreed to a set of unsanctioned rules.
The correct analogy would be if both teams would have played sub-optimal strategies while still giving it their best.
Also these subs actually get a chance to prove themselves as well as play in a real game which allows the coach to better evaluate those people. They are usually highly motivated. This is their chance outside of practice to prove/promote themselves.
I've seen this analogy frequently in the SC2 forum part and it is extremely poor, but it just keeps on poping up.
Thank you! So many people seem to be totally missing this point. Nobody is saying that teams aren't allowed to play ARAM, they just can't agree to it beforehand. Teams are allowed to play any strategy they want (though playing sub-optimally would draw a lot of flak too) but discussing what you will do with the other team is a huge no no.
If both teams agreed to ban certain champions outside the game (say adding 2 additional bans per team), proceeded to play standard games, and were then found out by MLG I would expect the same action. Doesn't matter if they were trying hard in game, they set up additional rules outside those provided by the game and the tournament organizers and that's just something you don't do in a serious competition. Ever.
What about a few years ago when phelps told another swimmer (forgot his name, but he was somewhat of a rival) to not wear a certain swimsuit that, during that time, gave a huge boost to swimmers. And i mean huge. I think it was a chinese guy, he first wore it and there was a huge (unusually huge) gap between him and second place. Nobody gave him flak for colluding.
You mean the swimsuit that was banned and was branded as "technological doping"?
On August 28 2012 03:24 kainzero wrote: i don't see what the big deal is with anything at this tournament.
S2 regionals are next week. both teams want to be super safe and not bust out any hidden strats. ARAM eliminates one game where they don't have to play conventional.
competition-wise, the fans should know regionals are next week too. they know there's a trade-off between giving it your all now, or saving it.
this is similar to games at the end of a sports season where they put subs in when they have a guaranteed bye in the first round and they don't want to injure their starters for the playoffs. sure, they could win the conference title, but they would disappoint their fans if they lost their star quarterback to an injury in a "meaningless" game.
The ARAM in itself isn't the problem. The problem is that they coordinated themselfes/collude (whatever you want to call it) with the enemy team and furthermore agreed to a set of unsanctioned rules.
The correct analogy would be if both teams would have played sub-optimal strategies while still giving it their best.
Also these subs actually get a chance to prove themselves as well as play in a real game which allows the coach to better evaluate those people. They are usually highly motivated. This is their chance outside of practice to prove/promote themselves.
I've seen this analogy frequently in the SC2 forum part and it is extremely poor, but it just keeps on poping up.
Thank you! So many people seem to be totally missing this point. Nobody is saying that teams aren't allowed to play ARAM, they just can't agree to it beforehand. Teams are allowed to play any strategy they want (though playing sub-optimally would draw a lot of flak too) but discussing what you will do with the other team is a huge no no.
If both teams agreed to ban certain champions outside the game (say adding 2 additional bans per team), proceeded to play standard games, and were then found out by MLG I would expect the same action. Doesn't matter if they were trying hard in game, they set up additional rules outside those provided by the game and the tournament organizers and that's just something you don't do in a serious competition. Ever.
What about a few years ago when phelps told another swimmer (forgot his name, but he was somewhat of a rival) to not wear a certain swimsuit that, during that time, gave a huge boost to swimmers. And i mean huge. I think it was a chinese guy, he first wore it and there was a huge (unusually huge) gap between him and second place. Nobody gave him flak for colluding.
You mean the swimsuit that was banned and was branded as "technological doping"?
The brand itself wasn't specifically banned. Just that body-length suits in general were banned. My point is he colluded and nobody cared.
You're prelaw, yes? Or a philosophy major? You argue like one.
Players can't make up new rules TOGETHER with players from other teams. That's collusion by definition, and it can be (and was) banned by the tournament organizers.
Games Design postgrad, but your point is taken.
Cooperating to do anything is not outlawed. Cooperating in such a way that one or both parties are aware that the process may alter the results of the play in a pre-understood fashion is. Nothing stopping two cyclists, for example, agreeing to chug a beer before a race, or to ease into the start, because neither are aware of, and consequently cannot make use of, the potential effect this may have on the results. Collusion is dangerous because it quite frequently pre-affects results in such a way that the colluding parties can take advantage of the knowledge.
Also, while I can't cite a specific example, I'm fairly sure several major cricket tournaments have had gentlemen's agreements between the teams in the past, though cricket is a peculiar game in that department. The thing is that the governing body of cricket is highly respectful of the idea that players CAN agree to amend rules on a casual basis. I vaguely remember a test when I was a kid where one of the players on one team subbed for the other . This stuff is hard to pin down precisely because it *isn't* a big deal. I imagine that if the same thing happened in the NFL or EPL things would be different, but that's partly because of the corporatisation of the leagues and partly because player and team contracts are absurdly detailed and intricate.
The brand itself wasn't specifically banned. Just that body-length suits in general were banned. My point is he colluded and nobody cared.
Well, they cared, but just like I've been saying, they fixed the damn problem, they didn't blame the player.
On August 28 2012 13:36 Thereisnosaurus wrote: Cooperating to do anything is not outlawed. Cooperating in such a way that one or both parties are aware that the process may alter the results of the play in a pre-understood fashion is. Nothing stopping two cyclists, for example, agreeing to chug a beer before a race, or to ease into the start, because neither are aware of, and consequently cannot make use of, the potential effect this may have on the results. Collusion is dangerous because it quite frequently pre-affects results in such a way that the colluding parties can take advantage of the knowledge.
This was triggered by playng ARAM though. They turned the entire game into a coin-flip. Let's look at a bit more extreme example. Suppose team A is stronger than team B significantly, that both playing in a straight forward manner will almost always results in team A winning. Now they play in this wacky manner in which team A only has 50% chance. In this case, the result is drastically altered. While it is not pre-determined who wins, team B ends up with a significantly higher chance because of it.
On August 28 2012 12:30 GeorgeForeman wrote: This is absurd. I don't even know how to respond. Your opinion is that MLG should be okay with players in one of its premier events fucking around in the finals of a tournament where $40,000 is on the line? You don't think ARAMs degrade the integrity of the tournament? You think the long-term success of LoL and MLG lies in giving people ARAMs to watch instead of real LoL matches?
Wait hold up, my throat is clogged with something. Oh, here it is, those words you put in my mouth.
No, I don't think ARAMs are the future of LoL. Again, look at the big picture. Season 2 Regionals, Season 2 Finals. Choosing to ARAM was a strategical decision within that context. The fans SHOULD understand. They should know that they won't get legit games because of what's up ahead. What does it matter if it's ARAM or Janna Jungle? And this is an unfortunate casulty of the Season 2 system, and something they should hope to fix in the future.
Conversely, let's say that neither Dig nor Curse attended. I doubt they would get the viewership that they wanted, especially after TSM and CLG said they weren't going, and the status of the tournament is automatically downgraded since the major teams aren't going. Is that better?
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But in the end it's still a bad position as a result of the way Season 2 is structured.
Hmm, the tip-toeing around the prize-sharing issue was some almost politician-level deflection. They talk a lot about the ARAM but when the other allegations come up all Saint says is that he doesn't care about the money. A straight up "we didn't do that and would never do that" would have been far more reassuring.
On August 28 2012 03:24 kainzero wrote: i don't see what the big deal is with anything at this tournament.
S2 regionals are next week. both teams want to be super safe and not bust out any hidden strats. ARAM eliminates one game where they don't have to play conventional.
competition-wise, the fans should know regionals are next week too. they know there's a trade-off between giving it your all now, or saving it.
this is similar to games at the end of a sports season where they put subs in when they have a guaranteed bye in the first round and they don't want to injure their starters for the playoffs. sure, they could win the conference title, but they would disappoint their fans if they lost their star quarterback to an injury in a "meaningless" game.
The ARAM in itself isn't the problem. The problem is that they coordinated themselfes/collude (whatever you want to call it) with the enemy team and furthermore agreed to a set of unsanctioned rules.
The correct analogy would be if both teams would have played sub-optimal strategies while still giving it their best.
Also these subs actually get a chance to prove themselves as well as play in a real game which allows the coach to better evaluate those people. They are usually highly motivated. This is their chance outside of practice to prove/promote themselves.
I've seen this analogy frequently in the SC2 forum part and it is extremely poor, but it just keeps on poping up.
Thank you! So many people seem to be totally missing this point. Nobody is saying that teams aren't allowed to play ARAM, they just can't agree to it beforehand. Teams are allowed to play any strategy they want (though playing sub-optimally would draw a lot of flak too) but discussing what you will do with the other team is a huge no no.
If both teams agreed to ban certain champions outside the game (say adding 2 additional bans per team), proceeded to play standard games, and were then found out by MLG I would expect the same action. Doesn't matter if they were trying hard in game, they set up additional rules outside those provided by the game and the tournament organizers and that's just something you don't do in a serious competition. Ever.
What about a few years ago when phelps told another swimmer (forgot his name, but he was somewhat of a rival) to not wear a certain swimsuit that, during that time, gave a huge boost to swimmers. And i mean huge. I think it was a chinese guy, he first wore it and there was a huge (unusually huge) gap between him and second place. Nobody gave him flak for colluding.
Could you or someone else provide a link to what happened with this? Some quick research just turns up Phelps (or his manager actually) saying that he wouldn't compete until the suits got banned. Nothing about getting others to agree not to use them though.
[QUOTE]On August 28 2012 10:36 SirScoots wrote: When you decide to have a "fun" ARAM match, the natural conclusion is you have also decided to share the money as why would you risk the money on something so random.
That is not the natural conclusion at all, and the prize difference between 1st and 2nd split 5 ways is pretty insignificant in the face of streaming revenue and what these guys will be playing for in the coming months.
On August 28 2012 13:36 Thereisnosaurus wrote: Cooperating to do anything is not outlawed. Cooperating in such a way that one or both parties are aware that the process may alter the results of the play in a pre-understood fashion is. Nothing stopping two cyclists, for example, agreeing to chug a beer before a race, or to ease into the start, because neither are aware of, and consequently cannot make use of, the potential effect this may have on the results. Collusion is dangerous because it quite frequently pre-affects results in such a way that the colluding parties can take advantage of the knowledge.
This was triggered by playng ARAM though. They turned the entire game into a coin-flip. Let's look at a bit more extreme example. Suppose team A is stronger than team B significantly, that both playing in a straight forward manner will almost always results in team A winning. Now they play in this wacky manner in which team A only has 50% chance. In this case, the result is drastically altered. While it is not pre-determined who wins, team B ends up with a significantly higher chance because of it.
ARAM isnt a coinflip at all, its just a more casual game mode that has a bit of luck involved in champ select.
And, as a note, we're not actually sure it was a true ARAM, the commentators noted that the picks were oddly suited to an AM gametype. In essence both teams appear to have picked teams designed for a a push mid strat and stuck to it, and ARAM is just the catch all acronym for any 10 pros, one lane setup. All we have learned is that the pros really aren't good at AM gameplay, the lack of AOE summoners and aura items was frankly disgusting
On August 28 2012 15:56 Thereisnosaurus wrote: And, as a note, we're not actually sure it was a true ARAM, the commentators noted that the picks were oddly suited to an AM gametype. In essence both teams appear to have picked teams designed for a a push mid strat and stuck to it, and ARAM is just the catch all acronym for any 10 pros, one lane setup. All we have learned is that the pros really aren't good at AM gameplay, the lack of AOE summoners and aura items was frankly disgusting
Don't forget about how bad the Ashe play was. I don't think an arrow was hit at all.
On August 28 2012 15:56 Thereisnosaurus wrote: And, as a note, we're not actually sure it was a true ARAM, the commentators noted that the picks were oddly suited to an AM gametype. In essence both teams appear to have picked teams designed for a a push mid strat and stuck to it, and ARAM is just the catch all acronym for any 10 pros, one lane setup. All we have learned is that the pros really aren't good at AM gameplay, the lack of AOE summoners and aura items was frankly disgusting
They played with ARAM rules such as not going back to buy and pretty much everyone was playing a champ they don't play in competitive settings.
I'm really starting to doubt the prize pool splitting allegations. That video interview was done just after the DQ it seems and according to MLG's original statement they admitted to prize pool splitting. But then moments later saintvicious was interviewed and denies the allegations of prize pool splitting?
Either Curse is some kind of special idiots or MLG just assumed that since they were playing ARAM they agreed to split the money. I mean, SirScoots just posted about how it's "obvious" that if you're playing ARAM you're agreeing to split the prize money.
With all the misinformation and hearsay going on with MLG/Riot's side I don't see any reason to believe MLG over Curse.
EPT
. This stuff is hard to pin down precisely because it *isn't* a big deal. I imagine that if the same thing happened in the NFL or EPL things would be different, but that's partly because of the corporatisation of the leagues and partly because player and team contracts are absurdly detailed and intricate. 
