|
On July 13 2010 06:04 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:02 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 05:50 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 05:41 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 05:32 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 05:28 KiF1rE wrote: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. Getting back to the point, invitationals are FINE, just not so many of them. Its like its a recurring theme, that anybody that wants to make a new tournament, apparently has to reserve seats or else apparently its a shit-tournament. This is a sad mentality. If someone makes a tournament and has a prize pool, that is already a worthy sacrifice to the community and should be respected and regarded as such. They shouldn't have to invite these "awesome players" just to draw attention to their tournament or have it not being labelled as "shit". Tournaments that don't have well-known's aren't shit-tournaments. If there weren't so many invitationals, people would stop thinking that. Its both disrespectful to the participants and to the tournament organizer. Why would there be alot of tournaments sprung up from small-beginnings if all you do is shit on the organizers for not having "big names" and instead having a "first come first serve with a height requirement" (which the latter is much more fair). Ugh. Don't you see how wrong this argument is? If you accept something is okay then you don't get to dictate the proportion of them! "Templar are fine but not if you make so many of them." "Throwing is good but you can't do it so much." "This tournament format is good but don't do it so much." If it's the ideal format, and it's perceived as acceptable, of course the majority of leagues will follow it. I think your post's tone should follow more of a personal wishlist as opposed to taking the tone of chastising tournament organizers for not providing your personal ideal ratio of invite : open tournaments. Am I not fair in my arguments? I don't think the community can grow if all we do is invitationals all the time, thats all. Well, forgive me if I'm reading into your posts wrong, but your goal seems to be getting yourself into more high-profile tournaments than an honest concern for the growth of a community.
If I wanted to bitch about not being invited, the TL.net SC2 General forum wouldn't be the place for me pitch my bitch at. I'd obviously bitch at the organizers of the tournament for not inviting me if I honestly wanted to bitch. You are reading my posts with the bias that I am only complaining for personal gain. However, this is not the case. Just because I have feelings of envy, does not skew my argument. I've already accepted that invitationals have merit and should exist, my argument was never about whether or not I should be in them, its whether or not so many should exist. Now do you get it?
|
On July 13 2010 06:03 Paramore wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:57 Looky wrote:
what are you talking about? there lots of tournaments that are not invitational. i played like 3 tournaments this weekend. and im not a known name. If you keep winnign these small tourneys then im sure your bound to get an invite I agree with you Looky, have you gotten an invite yet?
i didnt win them, but winning them will get your name more known. its all about rep. get 1000+ points on ladder or win these tournaments. Some of the invitationals are only part invite so go and qaulify for the. How you think these guy get invited in the first place? I didnt know who TLO was but when he beat some great players in these tournaments with unique strats ,everybody knows him now and he was random in the beginning wow.
|
On July 13 2010 06:06 Neobick wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:04 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 05:58 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 05:54 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 05:52 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 05:50 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 05:49 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 05:48 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 05:43 Jibba wrote:
ESPORTS, just like real sports, are not built on the foundation of competition > all. They work because sponsors want to give out money in return for advertising. Hevad and EG tournies are about the only exception, and as you've noticed, their payout is much lower than others.
So sponsors want attention and players want money. Inviting the best known players is the best way to draw lots of attention. what some crazy people seem to want is a "ruling class elite" of "professional known players" that are auto-invited to every tourney and do not have to work their way in. That is crazy. the good players will qualify if they can work their way through, but all these invite tourneys are lmao. Same damn people over and over again, auto-qualified. It'd be like auto qualifying nadal and federer for every single semi-finals of grandslams in tennis. That would be fucking ridiculous. Yes, they are that good that they will most *likely* get there, but that is the damn point, it's competition, and others have the opportunity to beat them. they are not "invited" to the semi-finals just because they are uber good. They worked their way up, and happen to be good enough to get that far every time in tournaments. Eh, you realise tennis players are seeded right? Yes, that's not the point. Seeding is perfectly fine, because it makes it so high profile players (that are recognized as such) do not end up playing each other in the first rounds. What is NOT fine, is auto-inviting those same players all the way into the semis for free. No player is auto-invited to the semis. People are auto-invited to the round of 16. OSL does the same thing. People should be happy that you dont need pro-licences and paying to play in tournaments. Stop harping on things not related to the point at all. And once again, you do realize that the players auto-invited to the round of 16 get to FREELY skip over the ro128 in lots of these tournaments lately? They are invited their, rather than having to work their way through the draw. Those are not as bad as some tournaments that were PURE invite only. Related as hell to the point, we talked about tennis, and top-ranked pro-tennis players arent playing the whole tournaments, thats equally unfair if you are not logically unsound, in which case debating with you are just fun and fruitless. Organize some tournaments yourself if you are complaining. Easy to complain, hard to do. As I said, people are far to spoiled. Most sports you need pro-licenses or/and paying to enter top tournments like the zotac cup. If you say win two zotac cups in a row you surely will be invited to higher yeld tournaments. If you are so much better than everyone else, thats a small feat. But as long as not paying or doing anything complaining just makes it sound like you bite of the hand of the ones who feed you. You've gotta be joking right? Top ranked pro tennis players ARE playing the entire tournament. Dare I say you're troll or completely ignorant? And lol? You're saying people are spoiled? LMAO. Ok, I know not to take your posts seriously now thanks. http://tennis.about.com/od/basicprotoursglossary/g/defseeding.htm"Definition: Seeding is the system used to separate the top players in a draw so that they will not meet in the early rounds of a tournament. The top seed is the player the tournament committee deems the strongest player in the field. She and the second seed are placed at opposite ends of the draw so that, if they both keep winning, they will meet in the final round. The number of seeds is based on the size of the draw." Sounds a lot like an unfair advantage.
RE-read a post I made earlier and you'll see I already posted what seeding essentially is. And seeding is perfectly fine, because it balances the aspect of having the great/known players in the tournament that people want to see, but allows new comers to challenge these players and make a name for themselves.
That is the huge difference between simply auto inviting people to deep rounds in a tournament, and between seeding them so that good players do not meet at the start but they still have to work their way and earn their way through.
|
On July 13 2010 06:06 Neobick wrote:http://tennis.about.com/od/basicprotoursglossary/g/defseeding.htm"Definition: Seeding is the system used to separate the top players in a draw so that they will not meet in the early rounds of a tournament. The top seed is the player the tournament committee deems the strongest player in the field. She and the second seed are placed at opposite ends of the draw so that, if they both keep winning, they will meet in the final round. The number of seeds is based on the size of the draw." Sounds a lot like an unfair advantage.
Seeding is the only way to make tournaments fair, actually. If you didn't seed tournaments, then you'd end up with absurd situations like the top 2 ranked players playing in the first round. THAT is unfair.
|
This thread is not about the nuances of tennis or golf. Its about what format the community wants as a norm for SC2. Do we honestly want so many invitationals, and even when we have invitationals, do we honestly want to give invited players so far of an advantage that its almost 75% probable that an invited player will win? Is it not enough for sponsors to simply KNOW that their horses are in the tournament, must the be given every advantage available for them to win as well?
|
I played Huk and sheth in these smaller tournaments and you wonder why these guys already have a name for themselves? they even play small tournaments and win them.
|
On July 13 2010 06:10 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:06 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 06:04 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 05:58 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 05:54 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 05:52 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 05:50 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 05:49 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 05:48 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 05:43 Jibba wrote:
ESPORTS, just like real sports, are not built on the foundation of competition > all. They work because sponsors want to give out money in return for advertising. Hevad and EG tournies are about the only exception, and as you've noticed, their payout is much lower than others.
So sponsors want attention and players want money. Inviting the best known players is the best way to draw lots of attention. what some crazy people seem to want is a "ruling class elite" of "professional known players" that are auto-invited to every tourney and do not have to work their way in. That is crazy. the good players will qualify if they can work their way through, but all these invite tourneys are lmao. Same damn people over and over again, auto-qualified. It'd be like auto qualifying nadal and federer for every single semi-finals of grandslams in tennis. That would be fucking ridiculous. Yes, they are that good that they will most *likely* get there, but that is the damn point, it's competition, and others have the opportunity to beat them. they are not "invited" to the semi-finals just because they are uber good. They worked their way up, and happen to be good enough to get that far every time in tournaments. Eh, you realise tennis players are seeded right? Yes, that's not the point. Seeding is perfectly fine, because it makes it so high profile players (that are recognized as such) do not end up playing each other in the first rounds. What is NOT fine, is auto-inviting those same players all the way into the semis for free. No player is auto-invited to the semis. People are auto-invited to the round of 16. OSL does the same thing. People should be happy that you dont need pro-licences and paying to play in tournaments. Stop harping on things not related to the point at all. And once again, you do realize that the players auto-invited to the round of 16 get to FREELY skip over the ro128 in lots of these tournaments lately? They are invited their, rather than having to work their way through the draw. Those are not as bad as some tournaments that were PURE invite only. Related as hell to the point, we talked about tennis, and top-ranked pro-tennis players arent playing the whole tournaments, thats equally unfair if you are not logically unsound, in which case debating with you are just fun and fruitless. Organize some tournaments yourself if you are complaining. Easy to complain, hard to do. As I said, people are far to spoiled. Most sports you need pro-licenses or/and paying to enter top tournments like the zotac cup. If you say win two zotac cups in a row you surely will be invited to higher yeld tournaments. If you are so much better than everyone else, thats a small feat. But as long as not paying or doing anything complaining just makes it sound like you bite of the hand of the ones who feed you. You've gotta be joking right? Top ranked pro tennis players ARE playing the entire tournament. Dare I say you're troll or completely ignorant? And lol? You're saying people are spoiled? LMAO. Ok, I know not to take your posts seriously now thanks. http://tennis.about.com/od/basicprotoursglossary/g/defseeding.htm"Definition: Seeding is the system used to separate the top players in a draw so that they will not meet in the early rounds of a tournament. The top seed is the player the tournament committee deems the strongest player in the field. She and the second seed are placed at opposite ends of the draw so that, if they both keep winning, they will meet in the final round. The number of seeds is based on the size of the draw." Sounds a lot like an unfair advantage. RE-read a post I made earlier and you'll see I already posted what seeding essentially is. And seeding is perfectly fine, because it balances the aspect of having the great/known players in the tournament that people want to see, but allows new comers to challenge these players and make a name for themselves. That is the huge difference between simply auto inviting people to deep rounds in a tournament, and between seeding them so that good players do not meet at the start but they still have to work their way and earn their way through.
Yeah, I did, sorry fucked up. Still same principle, living on former accomplishments. Where shall the line be drawn? I see the same problem, if the potential talent is being raped by federer and nadal every time, then how are they gonna advance? Joking aside. Still I think there are plenty of non-invites, plenty of invites and still if you prove yourself enough, you will end up like Huk. No problems at all.
And tell me why we arent spoiled?
|
Calgary25990 Posts
On July 13 2010 06:09 Paramore wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:04 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 06:02 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 05:50 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 05:41 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 05:32 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 05:28 KiF1rE wrote: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. Getting back to the point, invitationals are FINE, just not so many of them. Its like its a recurring theme, that anybody that wants to make a new tournament, apparently has to reserve seats or else apparently its a shit-tournament. This is a sad mentality. If someone makes a tournament and has a prize pool, that is already a worthy sacrifice to the community and should be respected and regarded as such. They shouldn't have to invite these "awesome players" just to draw attention to their tournament or have it not being labelled as "shit". Tournaments that don't have well-known's aren't shit-tournaments. If there weren't so many invitationals, people would stop thinking that. Its both disrespectful to the participants and to the tournament organizer. Why would there be alot of tournaments sprung up from small-beginnings if all you do is shit on the organizers for not having "big names" and instead having a "first come first serve with a height requirement" (which the latter is much more fair). Ugh. Don't you see how wrong this argument is? If you accept something is okay then you don't get to dictate the proportion of them! "Templar are fine but not if you make so many of them." "Throwing is good but you can't do it so much." "This tournament format is good but don't do it so much." If it's the ideal format, and it's perceived as acceptable, of course the majority of leagues will follow it. I think your post's tone should follow more of a personal wishlist as opposed to taking the tone of chastising tournament organizers for not providing your personal ideal ratio of invite : open tournaments. Am I not fair in my arguments? I don't think the community can grow if all we do is invitationals all the time, thats all. Well, forgive me if I'm reading into your posts wrong, but your goal seems to be getting yourself into more high-profile tournaments than an honest concern for the growth of a community. If I wanted to bitch about not being invited, the TL.net SC2 General forum wouldn't be the place for me pitch my bitch at. I'd obviously bitch at the organizers of the tournament for not inviting me if I honestly wanted to bitch. You are reading my posts with the bias that I am only complaining for personal gain. However, this is not the case. Just because I have feelings of envy, does not skew my argument. I've already accepted that invitationals have merit and should exist, my argument was never about whether or not I should be in them, its whether or not so many should exist. Now do you get it?
I've understood all along, I just happen to disagree.
|
United States2095 Posts
On July 13 2010 06:09 Paramore wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:04 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 06:02 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 05:50 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 05:41 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 05:32 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 05:28 KiF1rE wrote: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. Getting back to the point, invitationals are FINE, just not so many of them. Its like its a recurring theme, that anybody that wants to make a new tournament, apparently has to reserve seats or else apparently its a shit-tournament. This is a sad mentality. If someone makes a tournament and has a prize pool, that is already a worthy sacrifice to the community and should be respected and regarded as such. They shouldn't have to invite these "awesome players" just to draw attention to their tournament or have it not being labelled as "shit". Tournaments that don't have well-known's aren't shit-tournaments. If there weren't so many invitationals, people would stop thinking that. Its both disrespectful to the participants and to the tournament organizer. Why would there be alot of tournaments sprung up from small-beginnings if all you do is shit on the organizers for not having "big names" and instead having a "first come first serve with a height requirement" (which the latter is much more fair). Ugh. Don't you see how wrong this argument is? If you accept something is okay then you don't get to dictate the proportion of them! "Templar are fine but not if you make so many of them." "Throwing is good but you can't do it so much." "This tournament format is good but don't do it so much." If it's the ideal format, and it's perceived as acceptable, of course the majority of leagues will follow it. I think your post's tone should follow more of a personal wishlist as opposed to taking the tone of chastising tournament organizers for not providing your personal ideal ratio of invite : open tournaments. Am I not fair in my arguments? I don't think the community can grow if all we do is invitationals all the time, thats all. Well, forgive me if I'm reading into your posts wrong, but your goal seems to be getting yourself into more high-profile tournaments than an honest concern for the growth of a community. If I wanted to bitch about not being invited, the TL.net SC2 General forum wouldn't be the place for me pitch my bitch at. I'd obviously bitch at the organizers of the tournament for not inviting me if I honestly wanted to bitch. You are reading my posts with the bias that I am only complaining for personal gain. However, this is not the case. Just because I have feelings of envy, does not skew my argument. I've already accepted that invitationals have merit and should exist, my argument was never about whether or not I should be in them, its whether or not so many should exist. Now do you get it?
You say your not trying to say you should be in them. However in all of your posts complaining about invitational tournaments you make it sound like they should invite more people "like" you. Using you as an example, I don't realy know you that well. Have we ever played? Not saying I've played everyone "good" however out of the people who have been in all of the NA tournaments and NA events I know most of them. You... well once again using you as an "example" I woudln't invite you. (Mostly because you seem to be slightly whinish Nothing to do with your play style)
Getting well known by the players who play in inviationals is also a big thing. I've gotten invited to several tours because of that, and I've invited several people into tournaments because I know them. So back on the topic invitationals are easier to organize and more entertaining for spectators. (At least its funner for me to watch the ro16 then the ro512.
|
On July 13 2010 06:13 Looky wrote:
I played Huk and sheth in these smaller tournaments and you wonder why these guys already have a name for themselves? they even play small tournaments and win them.
Yes, but they worked their way through for their wins. The organizer didn't just simply invite them into the semis, or get sheth, huk, etc. and make a tournament with only them.
|
On July 13 2010 06:13 Paramore wrote:
This thread is not about the nuances of tennis or golf. Its about what format the community wants as a norm for SC2. Do we honestly want so many invitationals, and even when we have invitationals, do we honestly want to give invited players so far of an advantage that its almost 75% probable that an invited player will win? Is it not enough for sponsors to simply KNOW that their horses are in the tournament, must the be given every advantage available for them to win as well?
As a viewer, yes I am fine with it. Like I've already said I want to see IdrA, WhiteRa, Lz, NonY, and TLO play. Same reason I want to watch my favorite sports team play, not some random team from no where. I have a personal vested interest in these players because I know them.
Win small tournaments. Beat big names. Then maybe I'll start to care about you. I'm not being mean, just letting you know from a viewer perspective what I want... and since I watch most tourney's I am the target market.
|
On July 13 2010 06:16 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:13 Looky wrote:
I played Huk and sheth in these smaller tournaments and you wonder why these guys already have a name for themselves? they even play small tournaments and win them. Yes, but they worked their way through for their wins. The organizer didn't just simply invite them into the semis, or get sheth, huk, etc. and make a tournament with only them.
So which player that is being invited regularly did not work their way up?
|
I really think the best thing would be like buy-in tournaments. Have a 128 man tournament were you pay five or ten bucks to enter, and you can get a tournament with a big prize pool open to everyone pretty much automatically.
You could even have, say, then first round let people get their money back. Like winning the first game gets your 5 dollars back, and the prize pool would be the remaining 320 dollars for a 128 man tournament or 160 for a 32 man tournament.
|
On July 13 2010 06:11 altairian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:06 Neobick wrote:http://tennis.about.com/od/basicprotoursglossary/g/defseeding.htm"Definition: Seeding is the system used to separate the top players in a draw so that they will not meet in the early rounds of a tournament. The top seed is the player the tournament committee deems the strongest player in the field. She and the second seed are placed at opposite ends of the draw so that, if they both keep winning, they will meet in the final round. The number of seeds is based on the size of the draw." Sounds a lot like an unfair advantage. Seeding is the only way to make tournaments fair, actually. If you didn't seed tournaments, then you'd end up with absurd situations like the top 2 ranked players playing in the first round. THAT is unfair.
First of all: there is nothing unfair about random, the universe is unforgiving when it comes to random, thats fair.
Second of all: seeding is much more fair than what is currently happening in GGI2.
GGI2 format (exagerated) : Lets make 10,000 people fight each other out, then the last person standing, won't be crowned winner, but has to play against God, IF HE WINS, he will be winner and get 1$500, if not, God will be the winner of all time and is clearly better than the 10,000 scrubs that had to fight to get to fight God himself. The 2nd place guy is clearly inferior and will be forgotten. After all, who teh fuk loses to God first-round... pch...
I see something wrong with the last part, don't you?
|
Also the NCAA BBall tournament works with play-in games to some degree as well. Had the tournament expanded to 96 teams, you'd actually have seen the first iteration of "byes" in the tournament. 32 teams would have gotten a first-round bye while 64 teams played for the right to play those 32 teams. You could arbitrarily push these rounds backwards to draw the clear line to SC2. That way you can have a Ro2048 and it doesn't stop the fact that at the end of the day you have 32 (or whatever number) pros playing against the winning 32 qualifiers.
Stop thinking about it like invites. Just think about it as pre-qualifiers.
|
Imo, invitationals lack the factor of "upsets". People like to see the underdogs playing at the level of the "pros" and giving them a run for their money. When you have a tournament filled with well-knowns it just takes that excitement out and makes it more dull. Successful unknowns keep the game fresh. TLO is a great example of this.
|
United States2095 Posts
|
On July 13 2010 06:19 Paramore wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:11 altairian wrote:On July 13 2010 06:06 Neobick wrote:http://tennis.about.com/od/basicprotoursglossary/g/defseeding.htm"Definition: Seeding is the system used to separate the top players in a draw so that they will not meet in the early rounds of a tournament. The top seed is the player the tournament committee deems the strongest player in the field. She and the second seed are placed at opposite ends of the draw so that, if they both keep winning, they will meet in the final round. The number of seeds is based on the size of the draw." Sounds a lot like an unfair advantage. Seeding is the only way to make tournaments fair, actually. If you didn't seed tournaments, then you'd end up with absurd situations like the top 2 ranked players playing in the first round. THAT is unfair. First of all: there is nothing unfair about random, the universe is unforgiving when it comes to random, thats fair. Second of all: seeding is much more fair than what is currently happening in GGI2. GGI2 format (exagerated) : Lets make 10,000 people fight each other out, then the last person standing, won't be crowned winner, but has to play against God, IF HE WINS, he will be winner and get 1$500, if not, God will be the winner of all time and is clearly better than the 10,000 scrubs that had to fight to get to fight God himself. The 2nd place guy is clearly inferior and will be forgotten. After all, who teh fuk loses to God first-round... pch... I see something wrong with the last part, don't you?
Hyberbole only makes it seem like you have less to whine about so you try to make it bigger.
|
On July 13 2010 06:18 Neobick wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:16 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 06:13 Looky wrote:
I played Huk and sheth in these smaller tournaments and you wonder why these guys already have a name for themselves? they even play small tournaments and win them. Yes, but they worked their way through for their wins. The organizer didn't just simply invite them into the semis, or get sheth, huk, etc. and make a tournament with only them. So which player that is being invited regularly did not work their way up?
Stop trolling. Or do you really want people to start pointing out random names. There have been plenty. SC2 is a new game, and we all were new players to the game. When tournaments first started springing up there were plenty that did not work their way up.
That's not the point. The point is there should be less invitationals, and more open tournaments with seedings, and bo3s. If you have any better ideas, go ahead then.
|
On July 13 2010 06:15 Sheth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:09 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 06:04 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 06:02 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 05:50 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 05:41 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 05:32 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 05:28 KiF1rE wrote: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. Getting back to the point, invitationals are FINE, just not so many of them. Its like its a recurring theme, that anybody that wants to make a new tournament, apparently has to reserve seats or else apparently its a shit-tournament. This is a sad mentality. If someone makes a tournament and has a prize pool, that is already a worthy sacrifice to the community and should be respected and regarded as such. They shouldn't have to invite these "awesome players" just to draw attention to their tournament or have it not being labelled as "shit". Tournaments that don't have well-known's aren't shit-tournaments. If there weren't so many invitationals, people would stop thinking that. Its both disrespectful to the participants and to the tournament organizer. Why would there be alot of tournaments sprung up from small-beginnings if all you do is shit on the organizers for not having "big names" and instead having a "first come first serve with a height requirement" (which the latter is much more fair). Ugh. Don't you see how wrong this argument is? If you accept something is okay then you don't get to dictate the proportion of them! "Templar are fine but not if you make so many of them." "Throwing is good but you can't do it so much." "This tournament format is good but don't do it so much." If it's the ideal format, and it's perceived as acceptable, of course the majority of leagues will follow it. I think your post's tone should follow more of a personal wishlist as opposed to taking the tone of chastising tournament organizers for not providing your personal ideal ratio of invite : open tournaments. Am I not fair in my arguments? I don't think the community can grow if all we do is invitationals all the time, thats all. Well, forgive me if I'm reading into your posts wrong, but your goal seems to be getting yourself into more high-profile tournaments than an honest concern for the growth of a community. If I wanted to bitch about not being invited, the TL.net SC2 General forum wouldn't be the place for me pitch my bitch at. I'd obviously bitch at the organizers of the tournament for not inviting me if I honestly wanted to bitch. You are reading my posts with the bias that I am only complaining for personal gain. However, this is not the case. Just because I have feelings of envy, does not skew my argument. I've already accepted that invitationals have merit and should exist, my argument was never about whether or not I should be in them, its whether or not so many should exist. Now do you get it? You say your not trying to say you should be in them. However in all of your posts complaining about invitational tournaments you make it sound like they should invite more people "like" you. Using you as an example, I don't realy know you that well. Have we ever played? Not saying I've played everyone "good" however out of the people who have been in all of the NA tournaments and NA events I know most of them. You... well once again using you as an "example" I woudln't invite you. (Mostly because you seem to be slightly whinish Nothing to do with your play style) Getting well known by the players who play in inviationals is also a big thing. I've gotten invited to several tours because of that, and I've invited several people into tournaments because I know them. So back on the topic invitationals are easier to organize and more entertaining for spectators. (At least its funner for me to watch the ro16 then the ro512.
The ro16 would be just as entertaining regardless of whether or not 12 of the players were invited, because the players had to fight through ro512 just to get there, that in itself is an accomplishment. What did the "seeded" players accomplish before that point? Oh, they were good at Command and Conquer Red Alert, my bad, oh thats why they are there.... /end sarcasm
My argument is clear, whether you believe I have ulterior motives is not really up for discussion or the purpose I created this thread for. More fair system, less elitist system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
