EPTInvitationals, Invite Onlys and Reservations... - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
| ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On July 13 2010 07:38 TheYango wrote: Minor League/Dream League does exist. The fact that it's not televised probably speaks to the fact that it doesn't attract a large enough viewership to be worthwhile. From the standpoint of an uninformed viewer, winning Courage to qualify for MSL, or being seeded based on previous standings is fairly similar to being seeded based on performance in other tournaments. The primary difference is that I don't think the current SC2 tournament structure has a strong organizing body to govern the logistics of this sort of thing. Until then, I don't see slightly more informal tournament seeds based on past performance being a bad thing. I don't have an opinion on the situation for SC2. I was just getting facts straight for SC1. I realize what side of the argument I was supporting by saying that that's how MSL and OSL work, but I'm neutral on it. I personally prefer for everything to be open because I feel like I've missed things that I could have qualified for (a Blizzcon spot, for one). But I don't know what's best for the scene. Invitationals save both the players and organizers a bunch of work. In a world of unlimited time and resources, open tournaments would be ideal. | ||
|
Elprede
74 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On July 13 2010 07:45 Liquid`Tyler wrote: I don't have an opinion on the situation for SC2. I was just getting facts straight for SC1. I realize what side of the argument I was supporting by saying that that's how MSL and OSL work, but I'm neutral on it. I personally prefer for everything to be open because I feel like I've missed things that I could have qualified for (a Blizzcon spot, for one). But I don't know what's best for the scene. Invitationals save both the players and organizers a bunch of work. In a world of unlimited time and resources, open tournaments would be ideal. It's also worth noting that the "have to win Courage" requirement is a much stronger than any qualifications for entering SC2 tournaments currently in place. I'm all for Courage-style qualification requirements, but that would require a larger playerbase (only possible post-release), and a tournament organizing body a-la KeSPA that could enforce the requirement for relevant tournaments. | ||
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
On July 13 2010 07:20 iCCup.Diamond wrote: You know what I had somethign long typed out but this thread is insane so let's just cover all the tournaments with open sign ups: Open Sign ups ITC GG Inv Wolf Cup TRoU EuroCraft ZOTAC Closing Beta KOTH ESL Sunday Warriors ISC Cup Inflow Recruits Micro/Macro TransTasman InSC Liberty Cup SC2 World Cup Clan Property VISTA Lasik Tourney West vs. East Beta Re-Uptake PoleCraft BASC Green Forest E-Cafe iCCup TV KOTH Invite ONLY: ITL HDH MLG Gosucoaching Showdown's You see a problem with your point? This is only off page one of the SC Tourney forum. And anyway you look at it all 12 of those people for the GG Inv have earned it. let's stop beating around the bush man. YOU are pissed you didn't get seeded despite not winning anything significant to get there. The other problem is YOU made a very poor decision by switching your name. That was really dumb cause Paramore was JUST beginning to become a known name. Don't insult tournament organizers that are just trying to have some fun (remember GG iNV was originally out of the organizer's pockets 100%). Don't like the format? There's a VERY easy solution. Don't play. if no one plays or watches invitationals than they will die. Half or most of the tournaments you listed in non-invite only contain a value of invitational in them or reserve seating... Some of them don't even relate to the rest of the community.. like Inflow gaming clan recruitment? Don't twist my words for the sake of your arguement please. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
lIlIlIlIlIlI
Korea (South)3851 Posts
| ||
|
TalkSick
Bulgaria223 Posts
On July 13 2010 07:55 0neder wrote: I think too many invitationals are a bad thing, especially for a brand new game. We want to encourage people to get good at SC2 with the hopes of making a name for themselves in a big tourney. Invitationals discourage that and it there are too many too early in SC2's lifetime, the community will be smaller IMO. Great post, very good point there! | ||
|
f4hy
United States7 Posts
If you are just watching the games, seeing your favourite players play each other is fun, you get their history and how they did in the previous tournament. From a fairness point of view of course this is not the best system. People running tournaments want viewers and invitational is a good way to make sure people will watch. These hybrids that are qualifier and invite is probably a good idea to make sure you get people to watch, but also allow for some unknown to rise to the top and become famous for future invitationals. | ||
|
Spidermonkey
United States251 Posts
On July 13 2010 08:02 f4hy wrote: I think the advantage invitational have is it is more fun for the spectators but certainly not the best system for the players. If you are just watching the games, seeing your favourite players play each other is fun, you get their history and how they did in the previous tournament. From a fairness point of view of course this is not the best system. People running tournaments want viewers and invitational is a good way to make sure people will watch. These hybrids that are qualifier and invite is probably a good idea to make sure you get people to watch, but also allow for some unknown to rise to the top and become famous for future invitationals. This entire thing is just a bitch fest regarding the 'haves' vs the 'have nots' But it's not like there AREN'T open slots in these Tournaments, there are. The complaint is there aren't enough slots. Truth be told only 1 person will win. If you really are the best, and not a big name yet, then starting in the RO512 instead of the RO16 shouldn't concern you. You're amazing remember? You are going to win anyways. If it's about publicity for new players then I think you are going to be SOL. Right now the TL.net community has a few favorites, ie TLO, and I think it's going to take time and amazing play for anyone to match his popularity. Again though, you need to make it to the finals for us to care. No one cares what unknown player gets 4th or 5th in any tournament, win or go home. Guess what else? As soon as an unknown player does win over the community it's not going to be "lets see who the next unknown super star is!?" it's going to be "lets invite this new guy to all the tournaments!" and that guy will gladly accept it now that he is a 'have'. You have to have these big names for the Tournaments to bring in alot of fans. Fans mean sponsors, sponsors mean money. ***edit... not sure if I really should quote you. Only 1 thing pertains to what you said so when I say "you're" I don't actually mean you f4hy.  | ||
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
On July 13 2010 07:45 Liquid`Tyler wrote: I don't have an opinion on the situation for SC2. I was just getting facts straight for SC1. I realize what side of the argument I was supporting by saying that that's how MSL and OSL work, but I'm neutral on it. I personally prefer for everything to be open because I feel like I've missed things that I could have qualified for (a Blizzcon spot, for one). But I don't know what's best for the scene. Invitationals save both the players and organizers a bunch of work. In a world of unlimited time and resources, open tournaments would be ideal. If the GGI2 tournament were actually 2 tournaments, IE a qualifer tournament and then a main tournament, I'd have less of an issue than it is now, since its all rolled into one tournament... Winning the qualifier tournament means nothing to the viewers because its so downplayed. I guess this is yet to be seen and I may be jumping to conclusions... but still, its too early to mimic OSL and MSL and this GGI2 certainly isn't OSL MSL and the "qualifier" isn't Courage. | ||
|
Arcalious
United States213 Posts
| ||
|
ironchef
Canada1350 Posts
What would be sweet is some kind of feeder system, or external rank (could be informal) used to select seeds/invites. Kind of like how you could say rank/league/rating except something more meaningful or specific(ie to narrow it to 32 or 16). | ||
|
StaR_Robo
Australia229 Posts
 I guess what we are seeing at the moment is that there are a huge number of tournaments running and the organisers have to do 'extra' things to attract the names that will make their tournament visible. I'm only very new to the SC scene but I'm interested to see if this level of tournament activity continues post-launch because it seems to be way higher than what was there for SC1 | ||
|
SiguR
Canada2039 Posts
As a spectator and a competitor, I am really quite pleased with how the tournaments on beta have been unfolding. There seems to be the perfect amount of invitational tournaments to provide the community with enough footage/VODs to fill our free time/nerdgasms, and there are also plenty of sign up tournaments. I get the feeling one of your main issues (whether it is mentioned in your posts or not) is that all of the massively popular tournaments are the invite only tournaments - because really, there are plenty of quiet open sign-up tournaments. If you're going to try to intellectually discuss the flaws in the tournament community though, you may want to go back and edit your original post. I tried to stay objective as I read it but I couldn't help but get a feeling of major bias while reading it. There are a number of other things i'd like to add but I believe they've already been said thus far. | ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
| ||
|
fyisic
6 Posts
| ||
|
Baum
Germany1010 Posts
I think the reasons for this are pretty obvious. Invitationals draw a lot of attention because people tend to think that they will see the best of the best. This makes finding potential sponsors a lot easier. I think this logic is extremely flawed. If you look at TLO's recent rise to the top names of Starcraft 2 which started with him getting to the finals of the first TLI. Before this happened he was pretty much a stranger to most of the community. So I want you to imagine what if he hadn't been invited. I am pretty sure he would have made a name for himself in another tournament but what I want you to consider is this: What do you remember this specific tournament for? You remember it for those epic finals where the newcomer challenged the old guru of the scene. So to all those people who think invitationals provide a better experience for the fans I think you are horribly mistaken. Of course watching the first rounds of open tournaments can be frustrating but you may as well skip that step and start watching at the round of 8. This is a problem of organizing a proper shout cast and not of quality itself. I guarantee you the replays of the last couple of rounds of a big open tournament are just as good if not better than those of an invitation covering the so called "best of the best". Don't get me wrong it was fun watching HDH but it was also a little shallow. Like All-Star-Games in the NBA. So open tournaments are not only better for the players they also provide a more realistic competition to the viewer. | ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
| ||
|
Rarak
Australia631 Posts
On July 13 2010 05:37 Drakan wrote: This arguments made my day. Amazing. I don't mind for invitational ONLY tournaments. I love to watch them. But or you make it full invitational, or you make it free for all, but not a hybrid cz it's just unfair for those who are before RO/16 Invited players. It's not a good argument at all. In starcraft the seeded players are generally a lot better than most of the ones that have to fight through the tournament. Poker is a lot more random and much more luck is involved so no real comparison can be made. Besides, the players who manage to get through the brackets to reach the seeded players will surely have the best chance out of the unknown players. OP's point of view is rediculous imo. | ||
| ||
