EPTSigh*** another person who has not read the entire story... oh well... anyways... I'm not going to be further replying to those that think this thread is about me or that I'm whining to be invited. The thread isn't about that. Those that think it is should probably re-read the OP and all the following posts.
Invitationals, Invite Onlys and Reservations... - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
Sigh*** another person who has not read the entire story... oh well... anyways... I'm not going to be further replying to those that think this thread is about me or that I'm whining to be invited. The thread isn't about that. Those that think it is should probably re-read the OP and all the following posts. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On July 14 2010 01:18 Paramore wrote: However, besides first-come-first-serve, what chance did lower players get to go to great events like HDH. Sure, well known community sharing people got invited along with some "better known" players. Yeah, I was okay with the first few invitationals. However, then it became a regular thing.. and occuring in tournaments with $50 prize pools, thats when I made this thread. Because if $10 tournaments become invite-only, wtf tournament is anybody ever going to participate in if you can only participate in winning 25 cents if you are invited? True, big names draw large crowds, but do we really have to start reserving seats and inviting people to tournaments that are as so small, comparatively speaking? Like I said, what is special about any invitational, if all tournaments are invitational. If they become the norm, your viewer base will normalize and act as if they were just normal open-tournaments. Its because they are special that they get that many viewers in the first place. Once this goes "Norm" it wont be the same. Now you're trying to use a slippery-slope argument to make your point, which doesn't work. $10 tournaments won't become invite-only, because they won't be able to get the players they want. As people get better at the game, they will have to work harder to win tournaments, and practice time will be an issue--why risk a $10000 prize pool to win $50? In the long run, small tournaments cannot afford to be invite-only, simple as that. Just look at the Korean SC1 pro scene. Progamers were disallowed by their teams from entering the GOMTV Classic, which had a $40,000 USD prize pool in part because it would interfere with their existing practice schedules too much (those same teams still sent B-teamers, which, consequently, ended up getting some good air time). Also, go back to the poker analogy. Do you see top Poker players wasting their time with $1 Sit 'n' Gos? On July 14 2010 02:26 Paramore wrote: Sigh*** another person who has not read the entire story... oh well... anyways... I'm not going to be further replying to those that think this thread is about me or that I'm whining to be invited. The thread isn't about that. Those that think it is should probably re-read the OP and all the following posts. If so many people think that way, you might want to try harder at not *sounding* like you're whining. | ||
|
Spidermonkey
United States251 Posts
On July 14 2010 02:26 Paramore wrote: If a tournament has a reputation, big players will sign up, we don't need to invite them, they'll come. Sigh*** another person who has not read the entire story... oh well... anyways... I'm not going to be further replying to those that think this thread is about me or that I'm whining to be invited. The thread isn't about that. Those that think it is should probably re-read the OP and all the following posts. @Paramore The problem is the WAY you have written some of your replays makes it seem like you are insuating that either you should have been invited or that some people didn't deserve an invite. I'm not saying that is what you meant, but that is the way it comes off. The issue with that is you have made some good points, but then it seems like you are ignoring some too. If invite only tournaments become the norm, they will drop in popularity. I totally agree. I also think that the sponsorship/contestants will balance themselves out. Sponsors wont pay money because ratings drop and then either less pro's will get invites or they simply wont show because the money is to low. There should be MORE open tournaments. Well that one is entirely subjective. There are some, in fact a great deal of them. Sure none are as popular as the invite ones but I think we have established why that is. You don't feel some people deserve their invites... you said yourself they are being "spoon fed". This implies, to me atleast, that you disagree with the picks. You want call anyone out though so it is kind of a worthless point for you to make. If you aren't willing to say why you disagree with a pick there is no reason to even bring it up. Tournaments are about business. You want the best and fairest competition, which is admirable. When the money and the competition find middle ground then I think everything will balance out. The game is still young and this may well be one of those things that takes a few months to fix it's self. The only reason this thread has reached 14 pages is because the way you are responding to people. | ||
|
Uncertain
United States19 Posts
I am pretty bad at SC2 but I guess that is expected since I did not play SC1 and this is really my first RTS game that I have played online however, from a players standpoint I am sure that if my skill was the caliber of those that are high ranked diamond players that may be able to compete with the big names I would prefer to have the open format tourneys so that I could have a chance to play them and possibly win. So all in all, from a viewer standpoint (which the tourneys tend to favor as they are what brings the money in) invitationals are more exciting and action packed because we KNOW the big names will usually have good games while the open tourneys are not always as exciting. I have read through all 15 pages of this thread and I do not feel that Paramore is arguing just because he wants an invite to these tourneys, I feel he is arguing and posing this question because he is more of a player than a viewer and wants the tournaments to be more fair towards the unknowns that may be as good or better than the big names that we viewers love to watch play. | ||
|
Diamond
United States10796 Posts
On July 14 2010 02:38 Uncertain wrote: Since I got into Beta Phase 1 I started watching every tournament I could find online. The first one that I watched was the HDH Invitational and honestly I enjoyed all of the matches. I have also watched some tournaments that had games that were pretty boring to watch these were open tourneys. If the games in open tourneys were as exciting as the games usually are in the invitationals and showmatches then I would agree that there need to me more open tournaments, but with the viewer aspect in mind I prefer watching the invitationals just because they are more action packed and exciting. I am pretty bad at SC2 but I guess that is expected since I did not play SC1 and this is really my first RTS game that I have played online however, from a players standpoint I am sure that if my skill was the caliber of those that are high ranked diamond players that may be able to compete with the big names I would prefer to have the open format tourneys so that I could have a chance to play them and possibly win. So all in all, from a viewer standpoint (which the tourneys tend to favor as they are what brings the money in) invitationals are more exciting and action packed because we KNOW the big names will usually have good games while the open tourneys are not always as exciting. I have read through all 15 pages of this thread and I do not feel that Paramore is arguing just because he wants an invite to these tourneys, I feel he is arguing and posing this question because he is more of a player than a viewer and wants the tournaments to be more fair towards the unknowns that may be as good or better than the big names that we viewers love to watch play. I think this sums it up. Casual fans (ie: this guy) WANT too see invitationals. Sponsors like viewers, and more viewers is better than less viewers. I mean I HATE tournaments, but it's what the fans want to see. I think show matches are the best for SC2 but not everyone agrees so we still have tournaments. Trust me the last thing I wanted to do was an ITL Grand Prix, but it's what the people want. For the 100th time, this is about the fans, not you. The fans want invitationals so they will get them. When it changes to people wanting non-invitationals you will see peopl follow suit. This is NOT about you, not in the least. This is about the fans and too many players forget this all too often. | ||
|
Uncertain
United States19 Posts
On July 14 2010 02:46 iCCup.Diamond wrote: I think this sums it up. Casual fans (ie: this guy) WANT too see invitationals. Sponsors like viewers, and more viewers is better than less viewers. I mean I HATE tournaments, but it's what the fans want to see. I think show matches are the best for SC2 but not everyone agrees so we still have tournaments. Trust me the last thing I wanted to do was an ITL Grand Prix, but it's what the people want. For the 100th time, this is about the fans, not you. The fans want invitationals so they will get them. When it changes to people wanting non-invitationals you will see peopl follow suit. This is NOT about you, not in the least. This is about the fans and too many players forget this all too often. I like the show matches too, these give the fans the players they want to see duke it out without having the chance that one or both of the players get knocked out in a tourney and don't even get to play each other. Which I think is one of the reasons sponsors would probably stay away from the open style tournaments for big payouts, the viewers would dwindle if the big names got knocked out because of bad luck or a bad game. The sponsors give money so that they can receive money back from the viewers, and the viewers want exciting action packed games. This is not saying that the open tourneys do not have exciting action packed games, it is just saying that the chance of a boring game increases when the tourney is filled with people we are not familiar with. | ||
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
On July 14 2010 02:32 TheYango wrote: Now you're trying to use a slippery-slope argument to make your point, which doesn't work. $10 tournaments won't become invite-only, because they won't be able to get the players they want. As people get better at the game, they will have to work harder to win tournaments, and practice time will be an issue--why risk a $10000 prize pool to win $50? In the long run, small tournaments cannot afford to be invite-only, simple as that. Just look at the Korean SC1 pro scene. Progamers were disallowed by their teams from entering the GOMTV Classic, which had a $40,000 USD prize pool in part because it would interfere with their existing practice schedules too much (those same teams still sent B-teamers, which, consequently, ended up getting some good air time). Also, go back to the poker analogy. Do you see top Poker players wasting their time with $1 Sit 'n' Gos? If so many people think that way, you might want to try harder at not *sounding* like you're whining. You do realize the reason I made this thread was because a $50 tournament had reserve seating in it right? Thats why I said, it shouldn't become the norm... tournaments with small prizes like $50 was surprising to me. The $10 tournament was an exaggeration... $10 and $50 aren't exactly that different, not in my eyes anyways. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On July 14 2010 03:02 Paramore wrote: You do realize the reason I made this thread was because a $50 tournament had reserve seating in it right? Thats why I said, it shouldn't become the norm... tournaments with small prizes like $50 was surprising to me. The $10 tournament was an exaggeration... $10 and $50 aren't exactly that different, not in my eyes anyways. I realize this. I'm saying that those tournaments are only sustainable in the short term because the level of play is extremely low right now compared to where it will be a year after release. Right now, players can afford to play in those small tournaments without drastically jeopardizing their chances in bigger ones. When the level of play advances higher, and players have to practice much harder for tournament wins, this is less likely to be the case. No legitimate competitive scene has its top players competing for pocket change like that. If the best SC2 players in the world are accepting $50 invitationals a year from now, the scene has much bigger problems. | ||
|
CaptnIgnit
United States192 Posts
Invitationals bring in the people and money, hence why organizers host them. As everyone has said over and over, it's about entertainment. We want to see high levels of play and we know that the players invited are capable of high levels of play. Your concern is that these players might not be the very best of the best on a particular day, so you want everyone to have a fair shot at it? In an ideal world, this would be great. The problem is that this won't bring in views or cash and will never be publicized unless it did. It's simply a pipe dream. I agree we need a ranking system that can rank everyone and not the division thing blizz has going. Regardless, it's possible RIGHT NOW to get noticed through the available tournaments. It won't be easy, but that's kinda the point isn't it? | ||
|
njAl
Norway156 Posts
| ||
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
On July 14 2010 02:38 Uncertain wrote: Since I got into Beta Phase 1 I started watching every tournament I could find online. The first one that I watched was the HDH Invitational and honestly I enjoyed all of the matches. I have also watched some tournaments that had games that were pretty boring to watch these were open tourneys. If the games in open tourneys were as exciting as the games usually are in the invitationals and showmatches then I would agree that there need to me more open tournaments, but with the viewer aspect in mind I prefer watching the invitationals just because they are more action packed and exciting. I am pretty bad at SC2 but I guess that is expected since I did not play SC1 and this is really my first RTS game that I have played online however, from a players standpoint I am sure that if my skill was the caliber of those that are high ranked diamond players that may be able to compete with the big names I would prefer to have the open format tourneys so that I could have a chance to play them and possibly win. So all in all, from a viewer standpoint (which the tourneys tend to favor as they are what brings the money in) invitationals are more exciting and action packed because we KNOW the big names will usually have good games while the open tourneys are not always as exciting. I have read through all 15 pages of this thread and I do not feel that Paramore is arguing just because he wants an invite to these tourneys, I feel he is arguing and posing this question because he is more of a player than a viewer and wants the tournaments to be more fair towards the unknowns that may be as good or better than the big names that we viewers love to watch play. This guy pretty much got it right on the money with his closing paragraph. I'm arguing from a player's stand-point I guess. To me, it was never about the $$ or the viewer count, honestly, I make more money at my summer part time job than IdrA ever will at playing any RTS game... so I never knew money was THIS BIG of a deal. I mean, I knew it mattered, I just didn't know that it was the main reason anybody did anything around here. I totally understand viewer count, but I think that some organizers are confusing what makes a popular tournament (ie. more viewers). Its really not about WHO is in it as much as HOW GOOD the people are. If people continually watch a tournament with 'no-names' using high-level strats, pulling off high-level micro, regardless of their brand/image or name, then people will watch your show. Yeah, its easier to place a bunch of pros in a room and say, this is high-level, but that only gets you so far and the player pool doesn't expand if you don't give no-names a chance. The "best of SC2" today aren't that far better than the rest of the diamond players. This isn't like SCBW where players have been playing for 10+ years and are veterans with CLEAR CUT skill gaps. This is 2nd phase of beta where everybody is up in the air, including the "best of the best" right now. Yeah, there will be those players that have great work ethic and play 10+ hours a day, but others with great potential and only the time to play 4+ hours a day.. or 2+ hours a day, and still win tournaments. SCBW mentality is kind of stagnating the scene. Maybe not stagnate, but its seriously annoying as hell when Apollo, a pro CC3 player, and TLO a pro Supreme Commander player are the ONLY TWO people who are recognized as good outside of the SCBW RTS community. Don't even get me started about WC3 players, they get the least respect out of everyone. Just because there is barely any macro mechanics in WC3, doesn't mean the players themselves don't know how to macro. Either way, getting off topic. I think viewers, as a community, should really tune into the tournaments and see the greatness that lies within them. In a final round between HuK and Morrow in the so-called Open Wolf Cup 2 that "barely anybody watched" according to some people, it was still a final between two great players, and they got there without being seeded there, which makes it all the more worthwhile to watch. Before those finals, there were equally amazing games to be found between lesser-knowns. Even the ITC last night had some pretty great matches. If it comes down to the viewers, then I would ask the viewers to tune in more to the rest of the community, and stop tunnel-visioning their way to e-sports, because invitationals, while great, are not all there is to the scene. | ||
|
CaptnIgnit
United States192 Posts
Viewing matches costs time, a resource many viewers have limited amounts of. Watching 128 matches for 5 or 6 good ones isn't possible all the time. Watching an invitational with 4 good matches out of 16? That's not as hard to swing on a busy schedule. | ||
|
Baum
Germany1010 Posts
On July 14 2010 00:51 iCCup.Diamond wrote:Ok I said this earlier and I will say it again. No matter how much the players want to feel cool and powerful this is for one thing and one thing only. The fans. Without them you would be getting $0 to play this game and just be like some guy that's really good at D2 PvP. It's something that a lot of players are forgetting recently. The fans like invitationals, the fans will get them. Once fans stop liking them than maybe we won't see as many. And I said it before I think this is horribly wrong. I as a fan don't want to see those same people duking it out between themselves every day of the week. It just feels shallow. Of course people have earned their spot but a good tournament is about how you are performing right here right now and not how you have performed in the past. A lot of the tension comes from this. Right now a lot of people seem to like invitationals a ton but the thing is that the best organized tournaments with the most publicity were invitationals so this might be a misperception. Just take a look at the poll in the OP. On July 14 2010 02:38 Uncertain wrote: Since I got into Beta Phase 1 I started watching every tournament I could find online. The first one that I watched was the HDH Invitational and honestly I enjoyed all of the matches. I have also watched some tournaments that had games that were pretty boring to watch these were open tourneys. If the games in open tourneys were as exciting as the games usually are in the invitationals and showmatches then I would agree that there need to me more open tournaments, but with the viewer aspect in mind I prefer watching the invitationals just because they are more action packed and exciting. The problem is that those small open tourneys are not as well organized and have small prize pools and therefor they can't attract a lot of good players. This is why the viewing experience is sometimes not very satisfying but this can be changed by hosting more attractive open tournaments accompanied by a well organized shout cast. | ||
|
StaR_Robo
Australia229 Posts
edit: as for audiences .. the quality/reputation of the commentators can have quite an impact as well not just the underlying game | ||
|
HeartOfTofu
United States308 Posts
I completely agree with you that invitationals should definitely not be the standard. Just keep in mind that most people view invitationals simply as exhibition matches. Why on earth do you think people like Boxer get invited to Brood War invitationals? Everyone knows he's going to lose and there are plenty of better gamers. But fans want to watch him play and for an exhibition, that's what counts. | ||
|
Jehct
New Zealand9115 Posts
This is similar to the way an SC2 player earns their way into invitationals: participating in smaller events such as the Craft or Zotac cups and doing well consistently may get you invited to an invitational with a smaller prize pool, while continuing to do well in these smaller invitationals will get you invites to things like the HDH or GGI. Consistently getting invites to the big tournys is akin to having the bankroll to enter into the weekly tournaments without worrying about the smaller steps, etc. Anyway, I don't really understand your argument here - you personally think that some players getting invites don't deserve them and that others need more chance to prove themselves? That basically comes down to a matter of time, and its likely that the number of Craft Cups or ITC's will only grow with release together with the number of Invitationals so there will be plenty of opportunity to get noticed. With that in mind, what's the problem with invitationals? They get sponsors, help grow the scene and there are ample opportunities to get noticed and work your way towards an invite. They're also far easier to organise than massive tournaments which give the first to sign up a chance at the money. So, why hate on invitationals? | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
When you have tournaments that are open to everyone (or at least everyone with a pre-requisite skill level), it generates interest from the people that want to play at that level. If you couldn't compete, and go to State and if there weren't goofy things like the McDonald's all-American team, professional sports would die. I know that I'm the kind of person who only plays multiplayer games when I feel I can compete at them. If I feel there's a roadblock between advancing competitively (i.e. only invitationals) and where I am now, I'll stop playing and stop following the game. I know a lot of other people will as well. That said, I'm not supporting tournaments where anybody can join. Having new players playing in tournaments is a waste of time. As I advocated before, open tournaments with a minimum rating are the best choice. | ||
|
goswser
United States3546 Posts
| ||
|
Narien
Sweden31 Posts
Now, for me, i consider myself more of a viewer then a player, and I honestly have to say I want to see the players that I've allready heard about play it out. That way I can have a favorite to cheer for. With that said I do agree about the fact that if the scene turns to only invitational it will get stale and every turnament will be the same thing all over. However I realy think using the invitational with 4 spots open for qualifying is a great way to give newcomers a chance to be in the spotlight. If they are good enough they should pass the first or maby even second round and eventually knock one of the old "pro-players" from the invitational list. | ||
|
Pathology
Canada132 Posts
More then a few people have outlined in posts that the bottom line comes down to sponsorship and viewer following. Fair competition for everyone sounds spiffy but average sc2 players are not going to draw numbers like TLO and other big name players. You want completely non invite tournies? You can have them, without any sponsorship(or at least limited ones). Oh and by the way, grats, you've been promoted to the new event manager  As others have said, if you work hard enough you'll be recognized for it and one of those invite seats could become yours? | ||
| ||
