[Q&A] Official NASL Thread - Page 5

On February 23 2011 09:29 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Enter the open tournament

On February 23 2011 09:32 prochobo wrote:
I know what the FAQ says, but maybe you can give me more information. Is the NASL looking for any volunteers or full-time employees and if so, then for what positions?

I'm wondering if maybe they need an IT/networking person.

On February 23 2011 09:36 avilo wrote:


That doesn't really answer my questions. And to add on to the other questions I had, is the open tournament bo1s? bo3s? bo5s? Over how long? If it's bo1s, that's a shitty deal for the players not on a team imo.

Even then it's 1/1000 to get in a league for some players not currently on teams that can already beat players on these "elite teams."

We want to try to create as even a playing field as possible for teams. This is why we have allocated a maximum of 5. Some teams are not big enough to field five players, but we feel that it's a good idea to have a max of five to get as much diversity as possible.

On February 23 2011 09:05 diesirae wrote:
Please defend charging $20 for VODs when the world's best players aren't playing in your tournament.

On February 23 2011 09:05 diesirae wrote:
Please defend charging $20 for VODs when the world's best players aren't playing in your tournament.

On February 23 2011 09:26 avilo wrote:
Have you guys considered that there are "professional players" not currently on teams like myself that are aspiring to make money at this game? How does the tournament go about letting a top player like myself in the tournament that is not on a team, or are players currently not on teams excluded simply because they do not have a team yet can compete/beat the best?

Just wondering, because I know there are a ton of other players in my position with no team right now that consistently are beating players that are on these teams, and they, like myself, might be excluded simply because of not being on a team? Or is it still possible to be able to enter into this league?

How do you answer criticism that only allowing top players currently on teams sort of is a "keep the rich richer" 'exclusive' type of thing?

On February 23 2011 09:47 Xeris wrote:


I'll respond to this in depth. This league's success is highly dependent on us being able to adhere to a broadcast schedule. We need to have stuff playing every night. What happens when we let a random guy who's not in a team into the league: what if he does poorly and drops out? What if he's late every week and delays our broadcast? This ruins the league.

Having players on teams adds accountability and responsibility. If a team contracts a player to uphold some degree of professionalism, there is a much higher chance that they'll do their job. We can't just "trust" that a player not on a team will do all these things. A team can fund the player's trip to the LAN final, and pay the entry fee.

You have to realize, avilo, that this is much more than about simply playing the game well. There are many other factors to consider; we are looking at all of them, and you're only looking at the game. Requiring teams is a way to make sure that we will be able to run smoothly and professionally for the duration of the event. If you're good enough to beat the players in this league, you should get picked up by a team, or qualify through the open !

On February 23 2011 09:49 Plexa wrote:
Isn't that why you have a $250 bond?

On February 23 2011 09:52 Xeris wrote:


Correct. We want multiple levels of accountability and professionalism, and this is a way to do it. Being on a team, paying a $250 security deposit.

On February 23 2011 09:49 Plexa wrote:
Isn't that why you have a $250 bond?

On February 23 2011 09:47 Xeris wrote:


I'll respond to this in depth. This league's success is highly dependent on us being able to adhere to a broadcast schedule. We need to have stuff playing every night. What happens when we let a random guy who's not in a team into the league: what if he does poorly and drops out? What if he's late every week and delays our broadcast? This ruins the league.

Having players on teams adds accountability and responsibility. If a team contracts a player to uphold some degree of professionalism, there is a much higher chance that they'll do their job. We can't just "trust" that a player not on a team will do all these things. A team can fund the player's trip to the LAN final, and pay the entry fee.

You have to realize, avilo, that this is much more than about simply playing the game well. There are many other factors to consider; we are looking at all of them, and you're only looking at the game. Requiring teams is a way to make sure that we will be able to run smoothly and professionally for the duration of the event. If you're good enough to beat the players in this league, you should get picked up by a team, or qualify through the open !

On February 23 2011 09:55 Plexa wrote:
Being on a team didn't stop Naniwa from not turning up to his matches in the EPS I would say that the shame of being disqualified coupled with the loss of $250 and probably disqualification from any future events its more than enough accountability.

On February 23 2011 09:04 dracu1a wrote:
Do you agree that Idra being outlandish and rude is the main reason why he's the most "famous" Starcraft player? Very few people who aren't already into "professional gaming" are going to be interested in a bunch of emotionless, boring players that can't give a worthwhile interview or say anything but 'gl gf gg -_-'.

I honestly think the extremely boring player-base of sc2 isn't going to attract many people. Why do you think Steven Bonnell II gets so many viewers when he's basically the exact opposite of every other streamer?

On February 23 2011 09:57 avilo wrote:


Those are good points, but it seems for players not already on teams, a lot of this is going to be about politics to be able to get into "western e-sports." As, it's mainly the "already pros" who are going to be able to participate in this league much easier than players that aren't already on the teams.

Will you guys make this more accessible in the future to players that don't already have massive money/sponsors/backing like MLG has done in NA? Or will this stay an exclusive team type of thing throughout the future?

As for me, I am looking to get on a team of course, but it's a bad situation for someone like me because I am in fact regularly beating lots of the people that would be participating in this league, practicing 6+ hours a day, and I have a lower percentage shot to get in this thing simply because of the fact I currently am not on a team+no money.

And I would think there are lots of others out there that have the same difficulties, so when this is going to be the future of "western e-sports" you can see how myself, and others would bring up things like this.

Maybe I am only the ones vocal about it, because it is impacting me a lot that the entry pre-requisites are so high when you would hope that the "new hope for western e-sports" would help out players like myself that do not currently have a team by making it more accessible.

I can understand how you want to "handpick" players/teams that are known/established to get this league up and running, and that I am an example of an outlier, but hopefully players in my type of situation can still get in this.