On October 28 2013 00:08 FrvPssn wrote:
They only compare the wcs points within top 16 because it's just for seeding. There's no reason you have to play extra match if you're already in.
On the other hand, it's important for 16/17th place. It's the matter of in and out. Every point counts. Extra match is the best way to sort it out. If they compare the wcs points, it's unfair and it belittles other Tier 1 tourneys like DH and IEM.
Having said that, I want Naniwa and Revival both out. Places for Trap and Dear.

I would personally argue that there's an unfair advantage for players who have the funding and support to go to events like DH and IEM (ex. Taeja) whereas lesser known players or players in financially strapped teams (ex. maru) would have trouble flying to these events.

Though, I get the idea that those tournaments should be worth something which I agree. Maybe a little less than what they are worth now since a large portion of the player pool isn't able to play. Though Blizzard already made the points less than WCS so my argument would be more of how much each tournament should be worth and that's extremely subjective.

Oh wells. It is what it is.

IMO, that's quite fair. It's the players' problems (or teams' problem) if they can or cannot participate in certain tourneys. It's not the fault of the system. Those tournaments were open to anyone willing to participate, only the teams don't want to or can't send their players. So it's actually unfair if you reduce the worth of the tournaments in term of points rewarded because "large portion of the player pool isn't able to play"

There isn't even an argument to be had about this issue. It is a fact that it is unfair. The only way it's fair is when you change the nature of the competition to include means for travel. That is, if we wanted the champion to be someone who is not only good at SC2 but also good at traveling the world, then it'd be fair to test their ability to travel the world. As long as the purpose of our competitions is SC2, it is unfair when travel becomes an overwhelming factor.

I don't understand why people see this as an unfair thing. If you couldn't get to Ivy Leagues, it's because either you weren't good enough to get scholarship, or your parents weren't rich enough to support you. If you couldn't play in tourneys, it's because you weren't good enough to be qualified and seeded, or your team wasn't rich enough to send you. Luckily, unlike parents, you can change team. If you have the skill, you can always join foreign team and attend tourneys, like Innovation did.
Tl;dr: we are living in communist world where everything has to be "fair" that way.

It's pointless to talk about fairness, because we will never achieve a truly equitable system. But I think the point about opportunity is important. Skill is meaningless if you do not get opportunities. Once a player has skill AND opportunities, only then they will start winning.

That is what teams like EG and TL have done for their players. Are the EGTL players the best players in the world? I don't think so, but I think that the opportunities that they have (when the last time we've had a Premier tournament where a TL player or an EG player was not present?) is a huge factor in how much they win. Another example is Hyun. Quantic sends this guy to nearly every single tournament, and he consistently does well. He gets results not only because he is good, but because there is a support system (Quantic) that allows him to play at all these tournaments.

Hypothetically, let's go back 3-4 months. Let's say Woongjin Stars and STX Soul were able to send their top players to as many tournaments as EGTL did. That's players like Innovation, Soulkey, Dear, Trap, sOs, free, Classic, hyvaa, etc. These players would rake in the golds.

They have the skill, but many of them just did not have the opportunity. Opportunity on Korean teams is hard to find, but generally easier on the major "foreign" teams. It's not really about fairness, but that is the reality of the scene.