EPTMaestros of The Game—$20k event w/ live finals in Paris -…
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
Antithesis
Germany1189 Posts
| ||
|
Agh
United States984 Posts
On August 21 2025 08:18 FunKa wrote: Hey WombaT, appreciate the nice words, and also the "challenge" on the invite only :D There's a lot of factors that came into deciding to go for the all invite route as you probably anticipate. Off the top of my head the stronger arguments for it were : We wanted to be able to broadcast every single game of the entire thing, while remaining on a nice tight schedule We wanted to be sure that every player that agreed to play knew from the ground up they would be expected to play in Paris for the live finals. While this is fairly easy to do on a solid invite list with proper communication it's kinda impossible to do in qualifiers hapening in all the regions. We wanted the playing field to be as strong as possible and for the 1st stage to be hype and easy to read. I feel like the ro24 aka stage 1 direct elimination allows us to do that. I could list even more "practical" details that made it like this but mostly, we like it this way for this edition and we're also happy the amazing players that we got to talk to were excited at the idea to play. While we were involved in tournaments like Iron Squid and Nation Wars in the past, it's our first event as ComeBackTV and I think we're also finding our footing and completely fine with revisiting ideas for next editions if we're able to make this a regular thing <3 "Wanting the playing field to be as strong as possible" yet choosing to do invites is pretty contradictory. You wanting it to be "hype" is great and all, but unfortunately invite only is about as anti hype as you can get for people that enjoy the most competitive field and who would also rather see tournaments attempt to foster growth and not gatekeep, especially given sc2's current state. | ||
|
honkyboinks
4 Posts
| ||
|
honkyboinks
4 Posts
On August 24 2025 19:58 Agh wrote: "Wanting the playing field to be as strong as possible" yet choosing to do invites is pretty contradictory. You wanting it to be "hype" is great and all, but unfortunately invite only is about as anti hype as you can get for people that enjoy the most competitive field and who would also rather see tournaments attempt to foster growth and not gatekeep, especially given sc2's current state. Thanks for killing the fun by harshly criticizing the few people who try to keep the game alive bro, you're the GOAT <3 | ||
|
FunKa
6 Posts
On August 24 2025 19:58 Agh wrote: "Wanting the playing field to be as strong as possible" yet choosing to do invites is pretty contradictory. You wanting it to be "hype" is great and all, but unfortunately invite only is about as anti hype as you can get for people that enjoy the most competitive field and who would also rather see tournaments attempt to foster growth and not gatekeep, especially given sc2's current state. You're allowed to that opinion but we dont see it this way, and as stated they were more factors going into that direction. Besides, were doing a 24 player tournament in which you only need one victory to be "in the money". Invites where based on recent performances and aligulac rankings. Implying were not trying to foster growth when we try to build up a strong rendez vous for top level StarCraft in 2025 and future years is hard to hear but I guess we can't please everyone | ||
|
Agh
United States984 Posts
On August 24 2025 20:45 honkyboinks wrote: Thanks for killing the fun by harshly criticizing the few people who try to keep the game alive bro, you're the GOAT <3 Yeah pointing out the obvious is harsh, especially when it's already been done in the thread. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Keeping the game alive? Rather than explain it I'll just let you ponder how that is counter intuitive. | ||
|
honkyboinks
4 Posts
On August 25 2025 06:13 Agh wrote: Yeah pointing out the obvious is harsh, especially when it's already been done in the thread. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Keeping the game alive? Rather than explain it I'll just let you ponder how that is counter intuitive. It's already been done in the thread with much more tact and nuance, yes. And Funka already responded explaining their approach. Besides, he also answered you, you should take a look at it because he's done a really good job in answering you politely, since you're being the Karen of this thread. And yes, organizing a tournament with one of the biggest cashprizes of the year, when ESL/Katowice/Dreamhack/Blizzard are not there anymore and the game is in his 15th year, is keeping the game alive. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25520 Posts
On August 25 2025 07:54 honkyboinks wrote: It's already been done in the thread with much more tact and nuance, yes. And Funka already responded explaining their approach. Besides, he also answered you, you should take a look at it because he's done a really good job in answering you politely, since you're being the Karen of this thread. And yes, organizing a tournament with one of the biggest cashprizes of the year, when ESL is not there anymore and the game is in his 25th year, is keeping the game alive. It’s still an important conversation to have more generally, if we are moving more generally into the ‘crowdfunded era’. We should be able to have such discussions without it being completely critical, or completely uncritical (see also, RSL thread), or people being ‘Karen’s’ or whatever As I raised this initially, and appreciated Funka’s response, I’ll elaborate further on my own personal thoughts. This is a relatively new thing, at least in the sense that crowdfunded tournaments may constitute a big chunk of an SC2 player’s or viewers’s experience. Early events working, is way more important than later events working to show it’s a viable path, and to that effect, inviting the field to be rather stacked, increases those chances. I’m fine with it On the flipside, and where I imagine Agh is coming from, you can’t do this too often, you can’t have a scene where many tournaments are invite-heavy be vibrant. If nobody can actually step up and get into tournaments that are invite-heavy, the scene will stagnate. It’ll just be a scene that’s still dying, but you get to watch a bit more Clem, Maru or Serral or whatever for a bit. Again, not a criticism of this tournament which is IMO a cool as fuck initiative but we should as a community be able to look at pros and cons in a less polarised way as well | ||
|
Glorfindelio
211 Posts
On August 25 2025 01:44 FunKa wrote: You're allowed to that opinion but we dont see it this way, and as stated they were more factors going into that direction. Besides, were doing a 24 player tournament in which you only need one victory to be "in the money". Invites where based on recent performances and aligulac rankings. Implying were not trying to foster growth when we try to build up a strong rendez vous for top level StarCraft in 2025 and future years is hard to hear but I guess we can't please everyone One of the harshest (yet most accurate) truisms in life is that you can't please everyone, no matter how pure your intentions. Just know that the vast majority of us appreciate what you're doing here and the content you're providing. Hopefully, events like this continue to be a roadmap for the future of the scene. | ||
|
Herringbone
30 Posts
On August 24 2025 19:58 Agh wrote: "Wanting the playing field to be as strong as possible" yet choosing to do invites is pretty contradictory. You wanting it to be "hype" is great and all, but unfortunately invite only is about as anti hype as you can get for people that enjoy the most competitive field and who would also rather see tournaments attempt to foster growth and not gatekeep, especially given sc2's current state. Right on. Trash them for attempting to put on an offline tournament in a scene desperate for positivity and events. I take it you're putting in the time and effort to do an event that's a better alternative, right? | ||
Waxangel
United States33418 Posts
On August 25 2025 08:14 WombaT wrote: It’s still an important conversation to have more generally, if we are moving more generally into the ‘crowdfunded era’. We should be able to have such discussions without it being completely critical, or completely uncritical (see also, RSL thread), or people being ‘Karen’s’ or whatever As I raised this initially, and appreciated Funka’s response, I’ll elaborate further on my own personal thoughts. This is a relatively new thing, at least in the sense that crowdfunded tournaments may constitute a big chunk of an SC2 player’s or viewers’s experience. Early events working, is way more important than later events working to show it’s a viable path, and to that effect, inviting the field to be rather stacked, increases those chances. I’m fine with it On the flipside, and where I imagine Agh is coming from, you can’t do this too often, you can’t have a scene where many tournaments are invite-heavy be vibrant. If nobody can actually step up and get into tournaments that are invite-heavy, the scene will stagnate. It’ll just be a scene that’s still dying, but you get to watch a bit more Clem, Maru or Serral or whatever for a bit. Again, not a criticism of this tournament which is IMO a cool as fuck initiative but we should as a community be able to look at pros and cons in a less polarised way as well Ehhh, I think obsessing over professionalism and 'competitive integrity' peaked in like 2012 (for instance, literally no one cares about the supposedly fatal competitive issue of soundproofing—which was never solved—anymore). The remaining SC2 fans are more pragmatic/laissez-faire, and esports fans in GENERAL understand it's an entertainment industry first and foremost. There's definitely some baseline level of competitive pretence you have to keep up to have a 'serious' league, but I think quibbling over invites for this particular event is a very minority POV. | ||
| ||
