|
On July 13 2010 06:21 Sheth wrote:
No, because he's God.
God is only his alias, he's actually D+ iccup player that 6 lings all the time.. Final was ro1 and opponent was Terran on incineration zone with a ramp too large to block.
|
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.
Actually, I am saying they should invite more players like HuK, but how you read my words is up to you.
|
I think it's mostly because we are still in beta. I expect open ladders and tournaments after release.
|
On July 13 2010 06:22 Paramore wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:15 Sheth wrote: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.
In this case, what's fair isn't what's best. Fairness isn't the highest ideal or the sole basis of "best". As a participant, I would. As a viewer, I consider "best" to be the most entertaining. The most entertaining is to get to see big name players I am familiar with. In addition, it's nice to see new players as well against those big names because it gives those players their seminal moment. Hell, that's why we know about TLO. An "unknown" that made it big in the TLI. Other people will get that opportunity, but viewers will still get to be assured of seeing the names they like instead of watching them unceremoniously vanquished in a Bo1 in the Ro512 by cheese.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On July 13 2010 06:22 Paramore wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:15 Sheth wrote: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.
Your argument is idealistic but sadly untrue. A tournament with 8 unknowns fighting through the Ro256 will be decidedly less popular than one with 8 invited famous players. You can draw analogies from any sport to confirm this.
I know it's tangential to the main point, but I'm just saying it's not true. Big names draw big crowds. Especially because no one is going to be following a tournament closely all the the way from the Ro236 to witness those upsets.
|
On July 13 2010 06:21 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:18 Neobick wrote: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.
Im arguing for status quo. Or that you make a tournament instead of complaining. I dislike people who expect without doing. Trolling? An factual argument without examples are meaningless. But you may wish we just spout the same things over and over again without giving empirical data. And by empirical I mean show me a player that has been invited/seeded more than 2 times that doesnt deserve it, show me the reason he doesnt deserve it or else you cannot say that people are being invited without deserving it without sounding like whining and not doing.
|
On July 13 2010 06:27 Neobick wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:21 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 06:18 Neobick wrote: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. Im arguing for status quo. Or that you make a tournament instead of complaining. I dislike people who expect without doing. Trolling? An factual argument without examples are meaningless. But you may wish we just spout the same things over and over again without giving empirical data. And by empirical I mean show me a player that has been invited/seeded more than 2 times that doesnt deserve it, show me the reason he doesnt deserve it or else you cannot say that people are being invited without deserving it without sounding like whining and not doing.
Telling me and others that are posting our opinion that there should be less invites to go "host our own tournaments" is very retarded. I am not going to point out specific names, go look through all of the tournaments that there are up to this date yourself. Once again, that is not the damn point.
The point is there should be less invite only tournaments.
|
On July 13 2010 06:26 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:22 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 06:15 Sheth wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Your argument is idealistic but sadly untrue. A tournament with 8 unknowns fighting through the Ro256 will be decidedly less popular than one with 8 invited famous players. You can draw analogies from any sport to confirm this. I know it's tangential to the main point, but I'm just saying it's not true. Big names draw big crowds. Especially because no one is going to be following a tournament closely all the the way from the Ro236 to witness those upsets.
If White-ra lost first round in a ro256, wouldn't you want to follow the dragon-slayer and see how he did it throughout the rest of the tournament? If you seed properly, you won't have 8 randoms, you'll have 8 seeds or 8 dragon slayers, or what about those that can even best those that slay dragons?
It doesn't take that much effort to follow a tournament. A bracket can be easily accessible through a web-link at any point in time. Replays can be provided for past games. Its up to the organizer. Its not about how much work has to be done, but that is a quality tournament and ideal. There are probably even more prestigious ways to run things, but we can't have it all. I'm just saying, to have so many "cookie-cutter easy to organize" tournaments shouldn't be the norm since its not too many extra steps to seed properly.
If anything... top players would generate more replays if they started on the rest of the rounds the other players did... that in turn would draw more interest as well. Its not like our precious white-ra would lose first-round very often anyways, so I see no logical reason as to why he should start in the ro16 instead of the ro128... what.. all of a sudden he can't handle it?
|
On July 13 2010 06:29 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:27 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 06:21 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 06:18 Neobick wrote: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. Im arguing for status quo. Or that you make a tournament instead of complaining. I dislike people who expect without doing. Trolling? An factual argument without examples are meaningless. But you may wish we just spout the same things over and over again without giving empirical data. And by empirical I mean show me a player that has been invited/seeded more than 2 times that doesnt deserve it, show me the reason he doesnt deserve it or else you cannot say that people are being invited without deserving it without sounding like whining and not doing. Telling me and others that are posting our opinion that there should be less invites to go "host our own tournaments" is very retarded.
Im not telling you, I am suggesting that you do. I think you can have an opinion, but if its complaining about other peoples efforts, MY opinion is that you should have a really good reason to.
|
On July 13 2010 06:29 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:27 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 06:21 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 06:18 Neobick wrote: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. Im arguing for status quo. Or that you make a tournament instead of complaining. I dislike people who expect without doing. Trolling? An factual argument without examples are meaningless. But you may wish we just spout the same things over and over again without giving empirical data. And by empirical I mean show me a player that has been invited/seeded more than 2 times that doesnt deserve it, show me the reason he doesnt deserve it or else you cannot say that people are being invited without deserving it without sounding like whining and not doing. Telling me and others that are posting our opinion that there should be less invites to go "host our own tournaments" is very retarded. I am not going to point out specific names, go look through all of the tournaments that there are up to this date yourself. Once again, that is not the damn point. The point is there should be less invite only tournaments.
If the majority of people agreed with you, then yes it would be retarded. The fact that this is split down the middle really does mean that if you don't like it, then host your own... or convince someone who hosts tournaments to do it. It's clear at this point you aren't going to win the forums over.
|
On July 13 2010 06:22 Paramore wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
To the public, no they are not. I'm a casual spectator, I enjoy watching players I recognize more than Joe Schmoe, even if Joe has a better build order. When I read about new tournaments and the first thing I do is to see who's in it. If there are only unknowns I'm not very likely to tune in to it however, his doesn't mean it's a bad tournament. I'm not unique and the sad part is that you depend on noobs like me if you ever wish to see a professional SC2 scene.
|
On July 13 2010 06:31 Paramore wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:26 Chill wrote:On July 13 2010 06:22 Paramore wrote:On July 13 2010 06:15 Sheth wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Your argument is idealistic but sadly untrue. A tournament with 8 unknowns fighting through the Ro256 will be decidedly less popular than one with 8 invited famous players. You can draw analogies from any sport to confirm this. I know it's tangential to the main point, but I'm just saying it's not true. Big names draw big crowds. Especially because no one is going to be following a tournament closely all the the way from the Ro236 to witness those upsets. If White-ra lost first round in a ro256, wouldn't you want to follow the dragon-slayer and see how he did it throughout the rest of the tournament? If you seed properly, you won't have 8 randoms, you'll have 8 seeds or 8 dragon slayers, or what about those that can even best those that slay dragons? It doesn't take that much effort to follow a tournament. A bracket can be easily accessible through a web-link at any point in time. Replays can be provided for past games. Its up to the organizer. Its not about how much work has to be done, but that is a quality tournament and ideal. There are probably even more prestigious ways to run things, but we can't have it all. I'm just saying, to have so many "cookie-cutter easy to organize" tournaments shouldn't be the norm since its not too many extra steps to seed properly. If anything... top players would generate more replays if they started on the rest of the rounds the other players did... that in turn would draw more interest as well. Its not like our precious white-ra would lose first-round very often anyways, so I see no logical reason as to why he should start in the ro16 instead of the ro128... what.. all of a sudden he can't handle it?
I'll say that most of the time in Craft and Zotac and other large tournaments, you barely know a big name player lost. Sometimes it's more of a throw-away line in a live cast. You hear someone say "oh, so-an-so lost, ok, so who can we cast now?" They don't even explain who they lost to, nor do you really ever get to see it. That means you'd have to have the grid open yourself to notice, and then make a decision to follow that player (who still isn't having their games cast because they're an unknown) til they lose in a later pre-grid round.
It's definitely definitely worse from the general viewership perspective to have big names losing in Bo1 games early in large tournaments where not all games are cast.
|
On July 13 2010 06:33 Spidermonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:29 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 06:27 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 06:21 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 06:18 Neobick wrote: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. Im arguing for status quo. Or that you make a tournament instead of complaining. I dislike people who expect without doing. Trolling? An factual argument without examples are meaningless. But you may wish we just spout the same things over and over again without giving empirical data. And by empirical I mean show me a player that has been invited/seeded more than 2 times that doesnt deserve it, show me the reason he doesnt deserve it or else you cannot say that people are being invited without deserving it without sounding like whining and not doing. Telling me and others that are posting our opinion that there should be less invites to go "host our own tournaments" is very retarded. I am not going to point out specific names, go look through all of the tournaments that there are up to this date yourself. Once again, that is not the damn point. The point is there should be less invite only tournaments. If the majority of people agreed with you, then yes it would be retarded. The fact that this is split down the middle really does mean that if you don't like it, then host your own... or convince someone who hosts tournaments to do it. It's clear at this point you aren't going to win the forums over.
To be fair, according to the poll it isnt :D. But I dont see any evidence for the things that they claim, just whine. So naturally I think complaining about other peoples efforts should be done with great care, and with good reasons. And most of all, with solid evidence.
|
Paramour run your own goddamn tournament and you can do it however you want to do it. If it works out and is really better and as good as you say then maybe other people will model after you. If not then maybe you will realize how good the opposing arguments you gloss over are.
|
Nobody wants to watch nobodies. Shit man, simple economics? Tournaments aren't run for free (monetarily or otherwise). Get your name/skill out there on your own. Nobody owes you anything.
EDIT: went and read the rest of the thread and just going to quote the below post (which is very eloquent and conveys what I wanted to fully say)
On July 13 2010 06:01 Tickmint wrote:
As some have mentioned, a lot of times it comes down to sponsors and the prize pool. Sponsors expect a certain return on their investment, in the form of increased sales and viewers. When most people see an advertisement for an upcoming tournament, they are more likely to tune in if it is a couple of pro well known gamers, compared to a few people they have never heard of. Same thing with BW games. The videos with the big names going head to had have the most hits. It is pretty much the exact same with other competitive events or sports. The big names draw, even when they arent the best. See John Daily
Take golf for example. Sponsors are allowed to let people into a tournament regardless of their record, because they know those names will help sell the tournament. Michelle Wie had several sponsor exemptions when she was qualified for the mens tournament. Small name golfers have a chance to play into a tournament. They play earlier in the week and have to go through a huge field of amateurs, but if they win, they are in the weekend tournament.
In the WSoP many amateurs do not have the buy in fee for the main event, so they play in on satellites. They have to play through a large field of no name players to win a slot in the main event. The odds that they will win it all are lower than the pros, but they have a shot. If they are good enough, they will have enough money to buy their way in next year and not have to win a satellite.
If the tournament does not have a sponsor to worry about, an open field is a good idea, but once a sponsor is involved, the organizers have to think about attracting as many viewers as possible. Like it or not, Big name players bring in more viewers. As long as tournaments have slots that are open for up and coming players, I do not have a problem with invitationals. Everyone has to start somewhere and prove themselves, pros had to start at the bottom like everyone else and imo have earn the right to skip the opening rounds of larger tournaments.
|
On July 13 2010 06:37 Neobick wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 06:33 Spidermonkey wrote:On July 13 2010 06:29 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 06:27 Neobick wrote:On July 13 2010 06:21 avilo wrote:On July 13 2010 06:18 Neobick wrote: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. Im arguing for status quo. Or that you make a tournament instead of complaining. I dislike people who expect without doing. Trolling? An factual argument without examples are meaningless. But you may wish we just spout the same things over and over again without giving empirical data. And by empirical I mean show me a player that has been invited/seeded more than 2 times that doesnt deserve it, show me the reason he doesnt deserve it or else you cannot say that people are being invited without deserving it without sounding like whining and not doing. Telling me and others that are posting our opinion that there should be less invites to go "host our own tournaments" is very retarded. I am not going to point out specific names, go look through all of the tournaments that there are up to this date yourself. Once again, that is not the damn point. The point is there should be less invite only tournaments. If the majority of people agreed with you, then yes it would be retarded. The fact that this is split down the middle really does mean that if you don't like it, then host your own... or convince someone who hosts tournaments to do it. It's clear at this point you aren't going to win the forums over. To be fair, according to the poll it isnt :D. But I dont see any evidence for the things that they claim, just whine. So naturally I think complaining about other peoples efforts should be done with great care, and with good reasons. And most of all, with solid evidence.
That poll is very biased. The op is arguing we should have less invitationals or more open tournaments when, but that isn't what the poll is about. Of course people don't want invitationals as the norm. Ok, we don't have it as a norm right now either.
|
The OP sounds bitter. If you really deserve to hang with the top dogs, then earn your place.
|
On July 13 2010 06:45 Ocedic wrote:
The OP sounds bitter. If you really deserve to hang with the top dogs, then earn your place.
I never said I deserved it or that I wouldn't eventually try and earn my place. I'm willing to try and earn it.
I just think there should be less invitationals all around. Thats all. Or when you make an invitational, at least make it fair, not skewed.
|
United States47024 Posts
On July 13 2010 04:51 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 04:11 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2010 03:39 Doriboi wrote:
Invitationals should be the exception. However as more money is pumped into the sport, it will be more frequent. While I believe qualifiers should be setup like OSL or MSL, that may not be the norm for a while. Until then, players like MSV, Avilio or CheAse, will be left out until some major league team recognizes them. MSL and OSL are interesting to bring up. While qualifiers seem open, IIRC you have to be a progamer to enter which, in and of itself is already quality assurance. In a sense, OSL and MSL are also invite-only, it's just that no one complains because the "invitations" (progaming licenses) are handled by a governing body that everyone accepts. In the long run, it seems like the medium that people are most likely to accept. With progaming licenses or the like, you have a minimum level of quality that is assured for sponsors and viewers by the skill required to obtain the license. At the same time, you're not locked into just inviting big names to each tournament I'm pretty sure OSL and MSL also have players 'seeded' into higher rounds based on past performance as well. So the way those are run are really no different from invite/open tournaments anyways.
This is exactly my point. MSL and OSL are by far the best examples of a long-term functioning E-sports tournament, and the only way into them is by way of "invite" through earning a progaming license.
Until a reliable governing body emerges outside of Korea to handle progaming licenses, invitational tournaments are really the only way to ensure player quality in any way.
|
On July 13 2010 06:50 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 04:51 dogabutila wrote:On July 13 2010 04:11 TheYango wrote:On July 13 2010 03:39 Doriboi wrote:
Invitationals should be the exception. However as more money is pumped into the sport, it will be more frequent. While I believe qualifiers should be setup like OSL or MSL, that may not be the norm for a while. Until then, players like MSV, Avilio or CheAse, will be left out until some major league team recognizes them. MSL and OSL are interesting to bring up. While qualifiers seem open, IIRC you have to be a progamer to enter which, in and of itself is already quality assurance. In a sense, OSL and MSL are also invite-only, it's just that no one complains because the "invitations" (progaming licenses) are handled by a governing body that everyone accepts. In the long run, it seems like the medium that people are most likely to accept. With progaming licenses or the like, you have a minimum level of quality that is assured for sponsors and viewers by the skill required to obtain the license. At the same time, you're not locked into just inviting big names to each tournament I'm pretty sure OSL and MSL also have players 'seeded' into higher rounds based on past performance as well. So the way those are run are really no different from invite/open tournaments anyways. This is exactly my point. MSL and OSL are by far the best examples of a long-term functioning E-sports tournament, and the only way into them is by way of "invite" through earning a progaming license.
To expand the Korean SC scene paralell further, it seems the OP wants to skip courage, the B team, A team bench and go straight to the OSL/MSL.
Why should the organizers spend their time, effort and resources on unknown products (players) and have to deal with unknown returns on their investment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
31304
10732
300
192
EPT
