|
On December 02 2010 09:02 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 08:51 Zim23 wrote:
I think the idea that you guys focused a lot on negatives in that episode is a fair criticism. I mean you flat out focused mostly on the negatives of MLG, followed by Dreamhack, and finally GSL. Is that a bad thing? Probably not, we listen to the show to get your honest opinion on things so it's understandable that your honest opinions are sometimes going to be negative ones. I don't think it's fair. Secondly your post is really negative. Talking about us being negative is negative. I mean, you are entitled to being a negative nancy but I just thought you should know it is unbiased and fair criticism to say you were in fact being negative. Can we please hammer this out more please? I am fascinated by people pointing out the mood of a cast and others defending their right to discuss the mood of a cast.
You are not allowed to criticize their crititicizations without people criticizing you for it.
yay for made up words
|
On December 02 2010 09:02 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 08:51 Zim23 wrote:
I think the idea that you guys focused a lot on negatives in that episode is a fair criticism. I mean you flat out focused mostly on the negatives of MLG, followed by Dreamhack, and finally GSL. Is that a bad thing? Probably not, we listen to the show to get your honest opinion on things so it's understandable that your honest opinions are sometimes going to be negative ones. I don't think it's fair. Secondly your post is really negative. Talking about us being negative is negative. I mean, you are entitled to being a negative nancy but I just thought you should know it is unbiased and fair criticism to say you were in fact being negative. Can we please hammer this out more please? I am fascinated by people pointing out the mood of a cast and others defending their right to discuss the mood of a cast.
Haha! I didn't mind that you were negative. As I said I want honest opinions when I listen to you guys, and that's what we got. So I posit that my post was actually POSITIVE. Good day sir!
|
I cannot handle listening to MLG have no idea what they are trying to argue.
They honestly cannot see the difference between the double elimination and giving a random advantage to people.
MLG has decided that its not enough to just get the disadvantage from losing.
YOU ARE REWARDED IN DOUBLE ELIMINATION FOR MAKING IT OUT OF THE WINNERS BRACKET. ITS CALLED YOU NEED TO WIN 1 BO-X AND THEY NEED TO WIN 2 BO-X.
|
I played a 54 minute PvT while listening to the cast and I credit my many, many mistakes to its hilarity and welcome sincerity.
Such a great show.
|
I think it goes without saying that MLG Lee gets MAJOR props for going on the show and taking the few good zingers and plenty of bad jokes that were thrown at him. The double elimination debate was a bit muddled I have to say.
People talk about doing this or that to promote e-sports but this guy is literally hauling esports across the country. I mean, it is in his own best interest of course. Whatever company taps into the SC2 community is going to do very well, especially in North America. The recession is on boys, head to the computer!
|
The reason they have a great tournament isnt the rules its because they have sponsors as an additional comment. He just hid behind MLGs success as a reason to make bad rules.
|
On December 02 2010 07:57 Severedevil wrote:
The point of double-elimination is that sometimes the better player doesn't win, and deserves a second chance to win the tournament.
My understanding is that is makes the tournament less random not because a better player needs two chances, rather it is about 1st + 2nd spots being occupied by the best two players that attend.
e.g. (not the evil kind)
I hold a local tourney + invite incontrol + idra to it (no.2 + no.1 in the country) + 14 of my mates
(who all suck)
If this tourney is single elim then the results would be mostly random, if idra knocked out incontrol in the first round then the gap between the two best players would be many places.
However with double elim, the error of having the best two players meet each other early is minimised
+ in this example incontrol proves he is at least the 2nd best player, by beating everyone else attending.
|
TL;DR: this ended up as a 400 words long analysis of why I think GSL is boring, with arguments that have probably been used on TL hundreds of times already, so feel free to skip it. In short - too much effort is put into hyping the competitive scene up, while it's still early in its development.
+ Show Spoiler +Blizzard/Activision are promoting the competitive aspect of the game the same way they would promote the game itself. They want you to play it from day 1, they want you to buy the merch, etc. This makes a lot of sense - the sooner this happens, the earlier it is that they will start making even more money out of it. And it's not like they are doing something that could be considered immoral or anything.. They make their own investment and if it doesn't work out, too bad for them.
However, I still think that both the game and the players are simply not ready. It can not become incredibly exciting overnight; these things take time to grow organically. I don't know whether SC2 will become as spectacular as SC:BW but even if it does, it will take time.
But they want to start making money out of it sooner rather than later, so they are doing everything they can to hype GSL up. The insane price pool is making it even worse. The game is still too chaotic and perhaps too easy to lose. So, a lot of players don't try to develop their strategic thinking but simply practice the latest rush again and again and again in order to get the money. And the simpler the game is, the more luck a major factor in deciding who's going to proceed. It's as interesting as watching a coin flip.
Another thing that doesn't help is the fact that commentators (not just at GSL) are supposed to hype it up even more. Sure, it makes sense - if you tell your viewers that you've just casted a shit game, they might have second thoughts about watching it later. Or if you tell them that B-net2.0 is rubbish and has ruined the day, they might not buy the expansion. But the audience will realise that it's bored on its own anyway. At the same time, all good commentators of competitive sports are critical. Of everything: of players, of officials, even of the fans.
Of course, there are other factors as well; Blizzard statements such as "We want rushes to be viable" or their policy on custom maps, for example. But the main thing is that the game is just not ready for this sort of a league.
|
What a horrible cast last night. They didn't talk about starcraft at all.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
For those that didn't see it, there is a link to the pre-SOTG discussion with JP, Inc, and Idra where they're just taking questions and shooting the shit. A lot of funny and just good shit to listen to in there.
http://www.mediafire.com/?n398mtq8pazvy23
|
I think they should have used a better analogy, like if a Baseball team beat a team 20-0, then they met again later in the finals or playoffs, why in the hell would you start the match 20-0?
|
I thought the cast last night was great, if you're approaching the game from a spectator or fan point of view. And it was epicly long, which personally I don't mind.
You guys raised a lot of issues not necessarily about the game in-and-of-itself, but the game as a sport and how the experience can be improved for players and fans.
|
On December 02 2010 09:57 I_Love_Bacon wrote:For those that didn't see it, there is a link to the pre-SOTG discussion with JP, Inc, and Idra where they're just taking questions and shooting the shit. A lot of funny and just good shit to listen to in there. http://www.mediafire.com/?n398mtq8pazvy23
Thank you very much I_Love_Bacon, I can't follow it live, so I woudn't be able to listen to this otherwise.
|
Tyler and Lee were right. I know extended series isn't popular, but it is the most fair. Adding it makes it harder for those coming out of the loser bracket, but they already lost. Removing it makes it harder for those in the winners bracket, but they won. It only follows logic that the extended series rule is good for the tournament.
|
On the whole thing about GSL and backgroundstories etc etc:
They actually do this thing you ask for very very very very well! After every match theres a winner interview and you can find the vod under "gomcam". for me these interviews build up that excitement you guys talk about. there are often some good questions in them you get a little grasp about the personality of the players.
At the finals they even interview the players moms...
So if there is a tournament that does this kind of thing right then its the GSL
|
On December 02 2010 11:00 hmunkey wrote:
Tyler and Lee were right. I know extended series isn't popular, but it is the most fair. Adding it makes it harder for those coming out of the loser bracket, but they already lost. Removing it makes it harder for those in the winners bracket, but they won. It only follows logic that the extended series rule is good for the tournament.
that makes no sense, because any time the extended series rule is in effect both players will be in the losers bracket, except for the grand final where its already standard practice for the winner to have an advantage.
if theyre playing for the second time they've both lost matches. one does not deserve an advantage over the other.
|
On December 02 2010 11:00 hmunkey wrote:
Tyler and Lee were right. I know extended series isn't popular, but it is the most fair. Adding it makes it harder for those coming out of the loser bracket, but they already lost. Removing it makes it harder for those in the winners bracket, but they won. It only follows logic that the extended series rule is good for the tournament.
Simply put, the extended series makes the tournament less entertaining, and is bad for MLG business.
From the point of view of a spectator or player, I would argue that even though it is technically more fair, it comes at the expense of:
1) Ease of understanding, for new spectators and even players. It quite simply makes the tournament unneccesarily confusing while adding little value to the enjoyment of the games.
2) It removes the opportunity for more dramatic and entertaining matches at the end of the tournament, especially if someone from the loser's bracket makes it the final game -- which is the exact OPPOSITE of what you want to happen towards the ends of tournament. For example, you could argue that the extended series was one of primary reasons why the semi-final and finals matches of MLG DC was so anti-climatic. Huk threw his games away, and both Huk and Select had little chance against Idra because of the extended series rule.
All tournament systems are going to be inherently flawed. The extended series is technically more fair, but only marginally, and not worth the making the tournament/product worse overall.
My two cents.
|
On December 02 2010 11:10 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2010 11:00 hmunkey wrote:
Tyler and Lee were right. I know extended series isn't popular, but it is the most fair. Adding it makes it harder for those coming out of the loser bracket, but they already lost. Removing it makes it harder for those in the winners bracket, but they won. It only follows logic that the extended series rule is good for the tournament. that makes no sense, because any time the extended series rule is in effect both players will be in the losers bracket, except for the grand final where its already standard practice for the winner to have an advantage. if theyre playing for the second time they've both lost matches. one does not deserve an advantage over the other.
Personally, I think the argument should be less about artificial "fairness" and more about what "feels right".
If MLG really cared about fairness, for example, they would make all the matches be played on Metalopolis. That would be technically more fair, but would be horrible for the sport and tournament overall.
To me, the extended series rule makes the tournament maybe, who knows, 5% more fair, but the overall product and experience for players and fans 25% worse. It's just not worth the complexity and frustration it creates.
So yeah, I agree but for different reasons.
|
Seriously dropped the ball of this one.
Weak EU trash talk from butt hurt players, and half the show about crap that has nothing to do with SC2.
Horrible.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
