|
On July 13 2010 05:04 Neobick wrote:
No sport is non invite. Soccer has leagues, National cup is close but my town team havent a chance to compete with them. American sports doesnt even have a relegation and promotion system. Tennis, invite, Golf, Invite, Athletics, invites. I cant compete in any of the top tournaments there.
Most of what you listed there are all qualification based and league based. Most sports have a system in place that allows one to work their way up. They don't just invite team/players.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
Invitationals are logistically easier to run. In a perfect world, there's a greater than average percentage that the invited players would end up in the final rounds anyways. It's much easier for the tournament organizers to simplify a "foregone conclusion" than to grind it out and arrive there anyways. Further, if the prize isn't big enough warrant top players entering, they may be swayed to enter if they are given preferred status, which in turn means more people will be interested with the results.
So in short, it's easier, which is inherently obvious to everyone. Your post is absurd. You are basically saying "tournament organizers have a duty to do more work." No, they don't.
|
On July 13 2010 04:11 mahnini wrote:
the problem with open tournaments is there's no way to ensure quality play and it's probably a complete pain to organize. i'd like to see more opens too but until blizzard rolls out with a global ladder or tournament system it's going to be nearly impossible.
One way around this has already been found. "Diamond Only can sign up" . There is a ladder, everybody is included. Anybody can be promoted to Diamond if they win enough. It's not exclusive and its not elitist. Its a simple qualification and, while not a completely accurate gauge for skill, still somewhat effective.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
Okay I reread your OP and there's a bad taste of jealousy in it. You keep using terms like "without lifting a finger" and "spoon fed". How do you think the invited players got their names out? By winning a lot of games. That's part of becoming known in any scene - pulling yourself up by your bootstraps to make a name for yourself.
|
On July 13 2010 03:27 Bob300 wrote:
I completely agree, invitationals are cool and all but i would love to see a HUGE bracket of people to see the best that are not even pros. I bet an unknown would win.
Ahh have you seen the Zotac cup? up to 512 competing every week. And pretty much everytime its won by a well known player (or they make their name their).
|
An important thing to remember is that this is beta and the tournament are for beta. It sounds obvious, but it's important because it means that everything has to happen quickly. A tournament for phase 2 only has 1-2 weeks to run. It's really tough to run a comprehensive qualifying league/tournament or a large tournament in such a small time frame. So instead we have a lot of invitationals.
|
Giving people a chance to come through a grid, but giving some proven pros a bye to a particular round isn't an issue. If people keep consistently rising through prelims, they won't be a nobody anymore, and will start to be invited. Even faster if they win tournaments out of nowhere. Personally, if you're going to take away all of the invitational factor, then you need to make tournaments smaller.
This is about to be my personal opinion, so please treat it as such.
I feel that when poker and the World Series of Poker really exploded, it hurt to some degree the brand. It became harder for pros to dodge the massive flood of amateurs. The potential for bad beats was just higher in the new world order. Poker is not SC2 and SC2 is not poker, but the larger the field, the bigger the chance that something weird happens to snipe a big name. It's crazy but cool that tournaments are having Ro256 or Ro512 or Ro1024. But, if Jinro gets proxied in a single-elimination round, it's cool for the "no-name" that beat them, but it hurts the tournament overall. Viewership thrives on big names being far in tournaments.
Personally I think it's fine to have a couple round qualification grid that earns you the right to challenge an invited player in the Ro16 or Ro32 or whatever. It raises viewership, it gives no-names a chance to earn a spot in, and it lowers the volatility in a game full of cheese possibilities in a single-elimination game.
I think there should be full invitationals rarely to allow new talent to come in, but I think that hybrid-invitationals are not only ok but probably a good idea.
|
While the $$$ tournaments will usually be part-invitational there will probably be dozens of cups which everyone can join. You just got to work your way up I guess.
|
On July 13 2010 05:11 Chill wrote:
Invitationals are logistically easier to run. In a perfect world, there's a greater than average percentage that the invited players would end up in the final rounds anyways. It's much easier for the tournament organizers to simplify a "foregone conclusion" than to grind it out and arrive there anyways. Further, if the prize isn't big enough warrant top players entering, they may be swayed to enter if they are given preferred status, which in turn means more people will be interested with the results.
So in short, it's easier, which is inherently obvious to everyone. Your post is absurd. You are basically saying "tournament organizers have a duty to do more work." No, they don't.
I think this response is somewhat absurd actually. If people want to be tournament organizers, they should know what to expect, yeah, its hard work, thats what you get. If you are saying that the top players end up being the top players anyway, and to forgo that conclusion and just make them the top, whats the point in having the tournament in the first place?
Every time I enter a tournament, I express my gratitude toward the organizers and thank them for doing this for the community, some organizers can vouch for me on this. I tell them I appreciate them because they put alot of effort into what they do.
If every tournament organizer thought it was the norm to just cookie cut their way to an exciting ro16 every tournament, well, we'd have alot of white-ra tournaments and not alot of "Oh Wow, we found an amazing player like TLO who is innovative and new" tournaments.
I love white-ra, but I also love innovation and "new", I'm sure he agrees with me himself in this aspect.
Bottom line: You can't just say, "oh we'll they'll make it to the finals anyways" and then make 256 people battle it out to fight Slayers`Boxer and then call whoever won that final round, the winner of the whole tournament. The difference is, the person who fought 256 other players, is more of a winner than if Boxer, but would receive no glory, if he lost. I think that is wrong and to call that absurd is rather absurd.
|
On July 13 2010 05:17 Logo wrote:
An important thing to remember is that this is beta and the tournament are for beta. It sounds obvious, but it's important because it means that everything has to happen quickly. A tournament for phase 2 only has 1-2 weeks to run. It's really tough to run a comprehensive qualifying league/tournament or a large tournament in such a small time frame. So instead we have a lot of invitationals.
For god sakes, stop using that "its beta" argument. Beta has nothing to do with how community-run tournaments are at now.
Tell me, what main difference will there be between the beta and the real game (which will be released in 2 weeks)? I guarantee you anything you list will not have any direct impact on tournaments, gameplay, or any other such things. At this point sc2 beta is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kinda game for release.
|
On July 13 2010 05:13 Chill wrote:
Okay I reread your OP and there's a bad taste of jealousy in it. You keep using terms like "without lifting a finger" and "spoon fed". How do you think the invited players got their names out? By winning a lot of games. That's part of becoming known in any scene - pulling yourself up by your bootstraps to make a name for yourself.
Nobody is denying that people like me don't want to be people like them. Why wouldn't we be jealous? Aren't you envious that you don't get glory? Its normal. Hell, I'd love to be invited to be in the top ro16 while the others had to duke it out, doesn't make my feelings of it any unfair. Yeah, I'd like an advantage stacked against my opponent, wouldn't you?
Alot of the top players are there because of the past. Alot of the top players I have beat. Think of players like Capoch, who have beat Idra and White-ra all in a days work on the ladder. Yet not many people know who they are, but I do.
I just think, there should be more chance for glory to those that don't have it yet. Not 75% stacked bracket. Inviting a few people and having them enter in, even the second round, of the bracket, nothing wrong with that. Inviting 75% of the final bracket, then creating, what is basically an extra tournament, is IMO more work and is actually 2 different tournaments with a single prize pool where the first 12 invitees have an "absurd' advantage over the rest. How can they not win? Think about it.
|
I totaly agree that we need some invites for most tournaments... and as many have stated those invited players are really the cream of the cream RIGHT NOW.
but instead of having 9,000+ invite, most tournaments could easily choose 5-9 invites 2-3 of each races and THAN open all other slots for players that wants to compete against the best since you only improve when playing the bests.
Personaly i'm FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR..... FAR away from those top players (currently diamond #400 ish rating), eventho i'm comming from a good War3 background... but I'm practicing verry hard, everyday for 4-5 hours... and I'd like to have a chance vs them. I know for a fact that I would probably get DESTROYED!!! but eh! thats part of the game... or maybe I'm just underestimating myself and I could actualy give them a run for their money? who knows.... :D
|
Some of the most major tournaments to take place in phase 1 had some players who were just embarrassing to watch-- usually players who were big names in the community or even sometimes as good Broodwar player.
I think part of that is because its a beta-- you wanna see how the people you know of are doing.
Some tournaments will be about the big names competing which I'm totally all right with, and to a certain extent invitationals means you can no what to expect and what to look forward to. As long as players who clearly dont deserve it don't get a shot that any high ranking diamond player could have made more use of.
|
Alot of cons were mentioned here, which i undoubtedly agree with, and as i DO think that invitationals should only be the exception, you also have to put in mind about how:
Alot of the game right now is about revewing replays and learning, and alot of newer players like to find one or two players playstyles, and watch a TON of replays following them to help learn and get practice. Now, if there were no invitationals at all, MANY of the "top popular" players would not have time to do qualifiers for all of these different tournements either, which would decrease the amount of vido recording of their games.
But yes i agree, Less invitational tournements should be made... I mean in the US vs CA games, they took some "popular" names from both countries, but there are many more better players than the ones "invited" to these.
BTW: I love your name =D
|
On July 13 2010 05:21 Energizer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:17 Logo wrote:
An important thing to remember is that this is beta and the tournament are for beta. It sounds obvious, but it's important because it means that everything has to happen quickly. A tournament for phase 2 only has 1-2 weeks to run. It's really tough to run a comprehensive qualifying league/tournament or a large tournament in such a small time frame. So instead we have a lot of invitationals. For god sakes, stop using that "its beta" argument. Beta has nothing to do with how community-run tournaments are at now. Tell me, what main difference will there be between the beta and the real game (which will be released in 2 weeks)? I guarantee you anything you list will not have any direct impact on tournaments, gameplay, or any other such things. At this point sc2 beta is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kinda game for release.
It's beta = we don't have weeks to parse through a RO256 or what ever. Once the game is launched we can have tournaments spanning weeks to months... I guess that is more of a league though.
|
On July 13 2010 05:13 Chill wrote:
Okay I reread your OP and there's a bad taste of jealousy in it. You keep using terms like "without lifting a finger" and "spoon fed". How do you think the invited players got their names out? By winning a lot of games. That's part of becoming known in any scene - pulling yourself up by your bootstraps to make a name for yourself.
hmmm... the issue that i have is a vast majority of players in the SC2 scene being invited, did not work they're way up through SC2. they did it in other games... and according to a few tournament organizers here, previous accomplishments in other games dont matter, at least thats what i was told lol...(see the iccup tv tourney thread lol, signed up really early, like the first 10 or so and still waiting to be put into the "Open" sign up portion of the tourney several months later)
but in reality what have a vast majority of popular SC2 players done in SC2 before invitationals? just about nothing. there was no working their way up... they played a previous game and then marketed themselves for SC2. but that is why i respect players like Huk alot more.
|
I agree that invitationals should not be the most common form of tournament, but they certainly do have their use when it comes to raising awareness.
Hopefully we will see loads of open tournaments already this year.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
On July 13 2010 05:18 Paramore wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:11 Chill wrote:
Invitationals are logistically easier to run. In a perfect world, there's a greater than average percentage that the invited players would end up in the final rounds anyways. It's much easier for the tournament organizers to simplify a "foregone conclusion" than to grind it out and arrive there anyways. Further, if the prize isn't big enough warrant top players entering, they may be swayed to enter if they are given preferred status, which in turn means more people will be interested with the results.
So in short, it's easier, which is inherently obvious to everyone. Your post is absurd. You are basically saying "tournament organizers have a duty to do more work." No, they don't. I think this response is somewhat absurd actually. If people want to be tournament organizers, they should know what to expect, yeah, its hard work, thats what you get. If you are saying that the top players end up being the top players anyway, and to forgo that conclusion and just make them the top, whats the point in having the tournament in the first place?
Everyone has their own motives. Not everyone is fishing for new talent when they host a tournament. Getting the best game / time efficiency lends itself to an invitational format.
Bottom line: You can't just say, "oh we'll they'll make it to the finals anyways" and then make 256 people battle it out to fight Slayers`Boxer and then call whoever won that final round, the winner of the whole tournament. The difference is, the person who fought 256 other players, is more of a winner than if Boxer, but would receive no glory, if he lost. I think that is wrong and to call that absurd is rather absurd.
I never said that, which is why I put forgone conclusion in quotations. Let's use the term 'expected finish.' As I keep saying, in terms of quality vs effort, the invitational format reigns supreme.
|
On July 13 2010 03:33 iCCup.Diamond wrote:
The problem is a tournament without having some big names in it will do nothing and not be worth a cent to potential sponsors. It's all about the name value. It's the same reason a ITL with LzGaMeR or TLO headlining it will outdraw one with a no name like Avilio in it.
You want $ and potential sponsors you do things like invitationals. if you want to have lame tournaments that no one cares about, you do no names.
It's all about the $
Also do not forget about the HDH/Day9 effect. About 70% of the SC fans I have talked with don't know someone exists if they have not seen them in the HDH or on Day's stream...
Do you realize that faulty logic? The only reason those players became known was because they WERE invited to those damn invite tourneys in the first place LMAO.
I 100% agree with this thread, I said this since the start of all these beta tournaments, but most people would flame, and anytime anyone else said the same thing people would come in the thread and say "YOU'RE TROLLING" or some stupid shit.
A lot of the SC1 talent that have not proven themselves in SC2 got free invite cards because they were good at SC1, when not all of them were the BEST OF THE BEST in SC2. Some got in because they had popular streams, most others though just got in because they knew someone that knew someone that knew them and were in the scene.
THat is not always the case, but it happened ALOT. And still happens.
Invitationals definitely must not be the norm, it's a lot a lot of BS.
And for your example Diamond, this is exactly what paramore is talking about. Just an ex (sorry LZ lol). i've played lz 4 times in the past, once in a tournament, and i'm 4-0 vs him so far. But because I am unknown, I do not get free invite cards/seeds to tournaments the same way he does. This is the stuff paramore is talking about.
Need more opens, more first round bo3s (so good players are not cheesed out, map imba'd out of the tourney), so yah 100% agree with this thread.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
On July 13 2010 05:28 KiF1rE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:13 Chill wrote:
Okay I reread your OP and there's a bad taste of jealousy in it. You keep using terms like "without lifting a finger" and "spoon fed". How do you think the invited players got their names out? By winning a lot of games. That's part of becoming known in any scene - pulling yourself up by your bootstraps to make a name for yourself. hmmm... the issue that i have is a vast majority of players in the SC2 scene being invited, did not work they're way up through SC2. they did it in other games... and according to a few tournament organizers here, previous accomplishments in other games dont matter, at least thats what i was told lol...(see the iccup tv tourney thread lol, signed up really early, like the first 10 or so and still waiting to be put into the "Open" sign up portion of the tourney several months later) but in reality what have a vast majority of popular SC2 players done in SC2 before invitationals? just about nothing. there was no working their way up... they played a previous game and then marketed themselves for SC2. but that is why i respect players like Huk alot more.
Okay, so then how did they get known? You are saying "The problem is known players did nothing to get known" which is completely irrational. Of course they did something, via SC1 or other games or streaming or winning SC2 tournaments. If you don't choose to accept those as valid reasons then I guess you can boycott the consensus of who the best players are, but that won't do you much good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
