|
On September 02 2011 13:16 FawkingGoomba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 13:15 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:10 intrigue wrote:
hmm... okay here's how i see it:
1. assured of having 50% of the winnings, both players can play more confidently and with less nerves. downside is that without pressure, we don't get to see the real "champion" who performs under stress.
2. even with split winnings, first place has definite benefits that second does not (fame, seedings, fulfilling fans' expectations) - it's extremely unlikely that a progamer (who exists purely because he is extremely competitive) will play much below their peak level. that would only happen if progamers were motivated 100% by money, which would be stupid. you can make more than the average pro working a minimum wage job.
3. specifically in the case of fenix and tt1, i can't see much fault in it. being on the same team means you train together a lot, encourage each other, and get very close (apparently not as close as i'd think though LOL)!!!! given the same situation i would definitely offer/take a split myself. #1 is my biggest issue really, the part about no pressure i'm all fine with players having equal monetary gains but I and i'd imagine most spectators would want to see the real champion win if there were two players with equal skill, but one who can play well under pressure and one who can't, the one who can play under pressure should be the winner. however, when chopping the prize, this doesn't happen.. It does happen. You both still want to win and will try your best. In the case of MLG, I'm pretty sure every single progamer would rather win the title than win the $5000.
Then why not remove the $5000 entirely or have it be equal shares for 1st-2nd from the beginning, and have the players decide if they want to give more to the winner? We'll see how much the audience, who're the ones making such events feasible at all, are going to like it.
Oh and the players too.
|
On September 02 2011 13:19 FawkingGoomba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 13:17 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:16 FawkingGoomba wrote:On September 02 2011 13:15 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:10 intrigue wrote:
hmm... okay here's how i see it:
1. assured of having 50% of the winnings, both players can play more confidently and with less nerves. downside is that without pressure, we don't get to see the real "champion" who performs under stress.
2. even with split winnings, first place has definite benefits that second does not (fame, seedings, fulfilling fans' expectations) - it's extremely unlikely that a progamer (who exists purely because he is extremely competitive) will play much below their peak level. that would only happen if progamers were motivated 100% by money, which would be stupid. you can make more than the average pro working a minimum wage job.
3. specifically in the case of fenix and tt1, i can't see much fault in it. being on the same team means you train together a lot, encourage each other, and get very close (apparently not as close as i'd think though LOL)!!!! given the same situation i would definitely offer/take a split myself. #1 is my biggest issue really, the part about no pressure i'm all fine with players having equal monetary gains but I and i'd imagine most spectators would want to see the real champion win if there were two players with equal skill, but one who can play well under pressure and one who can't, the one who can play under pressure should be the winner. however, when chopping the prize, this doesn't happen.. It does happen. You both still want to win and will try your best. In the case of MLG, I'm pretty sure every single progamer would rather win the title than win the $5000. this isn't just confined to MLG imagine NASL or other big money tournaments and you're missing my point, the pressure isn't there yes they'll both try their best (or close to it) 99% of the time i'd imagine but the pressure criterion is STILL missing How is it still missing? I'm progamer "X" and I agree to split with my teammate. Am I suddenly less motivated to win the finals?
Knowing the earnings are the same might motivate you to not play the same. Hard to tell.
|
On September 02 2011 12:51 mczbot wrote:
definatly not match fixing to me, cause for me personally as a competor, i strife to win tournaments. the money is just a cool bonus. but then again, i've been doing this as a hobby, not as a profession. that being said, i come from the teamgames sector, so sharing prizemoney obviously isnt something new to me. but then again, when we won money we didnt split it up to equals of our team, we split it depending on how high the travel costs for certain individuals were and put the rest in as backup for upcomming travels. and to be freaking honest, thats how a team should work.
in my opinion won prizemoney (or at least a part of, since its a 1v1 game were talking about) should always go into the teams budget, not just on the single player who simply won, cause afterall, without your teammates and practise partners you wouldnt have stood a chance to win the money in the first place. if you want to keep the money for yourself, thats completly fine by my books, but then you shouldnt be part of a team.
but yea, as said above, doesnt matter to me how high the prizemoney is, the satisfaction of winning is what makes tournament play worth playing. so wether if its a 0€ or 10.000€ tournament, the will to win is exactly the same. and i guess thats how most sc2 pro's see it aswell, cause afterall, they devote their lives to the competition and if they wouldnt have that will to win and have that goal to be the best, they might aswell do a normal job with higher and regular wages or just play poker :p
Yea, I agree with the prize money going to the team. I'm sure that sounds idealistic and perhaps even impossible at the stage in the evolution of SCII as an Esport, but I still endorse it.
I have decided to never be a fan of a handful of people today based on their inability to see this issue from a fan's perspective. I would think that the pros would want to understand how this is perceived rather than argue in circles. When was the last time you changed your mind on something that you deem ethical/not-an-ethical-issue because someone else pointed out a flaw in your reasoning? Ethics runs deep. Deeper than logic and reason.
|
If it is still so prestigious to win an event regardless of prize money why don't all tournaments just offer 1st and 2nd place prizes to be the same?
|
I'm okay with a winner sharing a part of his winnings.
I think the amount should be his own choice and that whatever happens it is his money.
So no i'm against something where the players are "obligated" to split the money like some sort of contract or deal. But since this is your money I think you should be entitled to spend it as you wish and if you want to give some that is your call.
|
On September 02 2011 13:20 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 13:16 FawkingGoomba wrote:On September 02 2011 13:15 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:10 intrigue wrote:
hmm... okay here's how i see it:
1. assured of having 50% of the winnings, both players can play more confidently and with less nerves. downside is that without pressure, we don't get to see the real "champion" who performs under stress.
2. even with split winnings, first place has definite benefits that second does not (fame, seedings, fulfilling fans' expectations) - it's extremely unlikely that a progamer (who exists purely because he is extremely competitive) will play much below their peak level. that would only happen if progamers were motivated 100% by money, which would be stupid. you can make more than the average pro working a minimum wage job.
3. specifically in the case of fenix and tt1, i can't see much fault in it. being on the same team means you train together a lot, encourage each other, and get very close (apparently not as close as i'd think though LOL)!!!! given the same situation i would definitely offer/take a split myself. #1 is my biggest issue really, the part about no pressure i'm all fine with players having equal monetary gains but I and i'd imagine most spectators would want to see the real champion win if there were two players with equal skill, but one who can play well under pressure and one who can't, the one who can play under pressure should be the winner. however, when chopping the prize, this doesn't happen.. It does happen. You both still want to win and will try your best. In the case of MLG, I'm pretty sure every single progamer would rather win the title than win the $5000. Then why not remove the $5000 entirely or have it be equal shares for 1st-2nd from the beginning, and have the players decide if they want to give more to the winner? We'll see how much the audience, who're the ones making such events feasible at all, are going to like it. Oh and the players too.
Reverse chop hehe? Yeah Ive heard of that. Adding more on the line, like double the prize pool out of pocket.
|
On September 02 2011 13:21 Tektos wrote:
If it is still so prestigious to win an event regardless of prize money why don't all tournaments just offer 1st and 2nd place prizes to be the same?
Because teammates/friends aren't always in the finals?
|
On September 02 2011 13:19 FawkingGoomba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 13:17 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:16 FawkingGoomba wrote:On September 02 2011 13:15 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:10 intrigue wrote:
hmm... okay here's how i see it:
1. assured of having 50% of the winnings, both players can play more confidently and with less nerves. downside is that without pressure, we don't get to see the real "champion" who performs under stress.
2. even with split winnings, first place has definite benefits that second does not (fame, seedings, fulfilling fans' expectations) - it's extremely unlikely that a progamer (who exists purely because he is extremely competitive) will play much below their peak level. that would only happen if progamers were motivated 100% by money, which would be stupid. you can make more than the average pro working a minimum wage job.
3. specifically in the case of fenix and tt1, i can't see much fault in it. being on the same team means you train together a lot, encourage each other, and get very close (apparently not as close as i'd think though LOL)!!!! given the same situation i would definitely offer/take a split myself. #1 is my biggest issue really, the part about no pressure i'm all fine with players having equal monetary gains but I and i'd imagine most spectators would want to see the real champion win if there were two players with equal skill, but one who can play well under pressure and one who can't, the one who can play under pressure should be the winner. however, when chopping the prize, this doesn't happen.. It does happen. You both still want to win and will try your best. In the case of MLG, I'm pretty sure every single progamer would rather win the title than win the $5000. this isn't just confined to MLG imagine NASL or other big money tournaments and you're missing my point, the pressure isn't there yes they'll both try their best (or close to it) 99% of the time i'd imagine but the pressure criterion is STILL missing How is it still missing? I'm progamer "X" and I agree to split with my teammate. Am I suddenly less motivated to win the finals?
I said PRESSURE, not motivation. Just look at my example. Two players with equal sc2 skills, but one with better mentality (one who can play well under pressure) and one who can't. If the prize is split evenly, a lot of the pressure is gone. Without chopping, the player with better mentality will win (assuming they have equal skill). With chopping, it becomes unclear and random. This probably is minimal or not true at all for MLG since the prize pool is pretty small, but think of NASL or MLG finals, when 20k is on the line for your last game. How can you argue that the pressure doesn't change?
and even if it's motivation, yes there'd definitely be less, although that will vary greatly depending on person/prize difference
|
On September 02 2011 13:22 FawkingGoomba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 13:21 Tektos wrote:
If it is still so prestigious to win an event regardless of prize money why don't all tournaments just offer 1st and 2nd place prizes to be the same? Because teammates/friends aren't always in the finals?
Yeah but why can't we all be friends and all share our money and make a wonderful communist e-sports society?
|
On September 02 2011 13:10 intrigue wrote:
hmm... okay here's how i see it:
1. assured of having 50% of the winnings, both players can play more confidently and with less nerves. downside is that without pressure, we don't get to see the real "champion" who performs under stress.
2. even with split winnings, first place has definite benefits that second does not (fame, seedings, fulfilling fans' expectations) - it's extremely unlikely that a progamer (who exists purely because he is extremely competitive) will play much below their peak level. that would only happen if progamers were motivated 100% by money, which would be stupid. you can make more than the average pro working a minimum wage job.
3. specifically in the case of fenix and tt1, i can't see much fault in it. being on the same team means you train together a lot, encourage each other, and get very close (apparently not as close as i'd think though LOL)!!!! given the same situation i would definitely offer/take a split myself.
1. While they may play with confidence, we would never be able to know who is the better player would we? The skill in which to perform under stress would be thrown out of the window. People who practices really hard, to take time to overcome the anxiety of playing in the finals would be disgusted. What about the other players in the semi-finals, knowing that in essence, the two players they face, are actually already playing their "finals" would agree to this "deal making?"
2. Fulfilling fans' expectation? I would expect the player to do his best, no matter the result. Why would I be a fan of someone, who does not play at his best? Fame? On the surface, looking at the result, yes, but when we watch the match, oh wow, we would then realise its really not a win.
3. Thin about this, Losira vs Nestea, they decide to split the money in the last GSL, and Nestea allow Losira to win. Would the Korean community allow that? What about people spending money on going to the even?
|
On September 02 2011 13:21 skatbone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 12:51 mczbot wrote:
definatly not match fixing to me, cause for me personally as a competor, i strife to win tournaments. the money is just a cool bonus. but then again, i've been doing this as a hobby, not as a profession. that being said, i come from the teamgames sector, so sharing prizemoney obviously isnt something new to me. but then again, when we won money we didnt split it up to equals of our team, we split it depending on how high the travel costs for certain individuals were and put the rest in as backup for upcomming travels. and to be freaking honest, thats how a team should work.
in my opinion won prizemoney (or at least a part of, since its a 1v1 game were talking about) should always go into the teams budget, not just on the single player who simply won, cause afterall, without your teammates and practise partners you wouldnt have stood a chance to win the money in the first place. if you want to keep the money for yourself, thats completly fine by my books, but then you shouldnt be part of a team.
but yea, as said above, doesnt matter to me how high the prizemoney is, the satisfaction of winning is what makes tournament play worth playing. so wether if its a 0€ or 10.000€ tournament, the will to win is exactly the same. and i guess thats how most sc2 pro's see it aswell, cause afterall, they devote their lives to the competition and if they wouldnt have that will to win and have that goal to be the best, they might aswell do a normal job with higher and regular wages or just play poker :p Yea, I agree with the prize money going to the team. I'm sure that sounds idealistic and perhaps even impossible at the stage in the evolution of SCII as an Esport, but I still endorse it. I have decided to never be a fan of a handful of people today based on their inability to see this issue from a fan's perspective. I would think that the pros would want to understand how this is perceived rather than argue in circles. When was the last time you changed your mind on something that you deem ethical/not-an-ethical-issue because someone else pointed out a flaw in your reasoning? Ethics runs deep. Deeper than logic and reason.
a fan's perspective? pros also observe matches and finals all the time doesn't change anything
|
On September 02 2011 13:23 Namu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 13:19 FawkingGoomba wrote:On September 02 2011 13:17 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:16 FawkingGoomba wrote:On September 02 2011 13:15 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:10 intrigue wrote:
hmm... okay here's how i see it:
1. assured of having 50% of the winnings, both players can play more confidently and with less nerves. downside is that without pressure, we don't get to see the real "champion" who performs under stress.
2. even with split winnings, first place has definite benefits that second does not (fame, seedings, fulfilling fans' expectations) - it's extremely unlikely that a progamer (who exists purely because he is extremely competitive) will play much below their peak level. that would only happen if progamers were motivated 100% by money, which would be stupid. you can make more than the average pro working a minimum wage job.
3. specifically in the case of fenix and tt1, i can't see much fault in it. being on the same team means you train together a lot, encourage each other, and get very close (apparently not as close as i'd think though LOL)!!!! given the same situation i would definitely offer/take a split myself. #1 is my biggest issue really, the part about no pressure i'm all fine with players having equal monetary gains but I and i'd imagine most spectators would want to see the real champion win if there were two players with equal skill, but one who can play well under pressure and one who can't, the one who can play under pressure should be the winner. however, when chopping the prize, this doesn't happen.. It does happen. You both still want to win and will try your best. In the case of MLG, I'm pretty sure every single progamer would rather win the title than win the $5000. this isn't just confined to MLG imagine NASL or other big money tournaments and you're missing my point, the pressure isn't there yes they'll both try their best (or close to it) 99% of the time i'd imagine but the pressure criterion is STILL missing How is it still missing? I'm progamer "X" and I agree to split with my teammate. Am I suddenly less motivated to win the finals? I said PRESSURE, not motivation. Just look at my example. Two players with equal sc2 skills, but one with better mentality (one who can play well under pressure) and one who can't. If the prize is split evenly, a lot of the pressure is gone. Without chopping, the player with better mentality will win (assuming they have equal skill). With chopping, it becomes unclear and random. This probably is minimal or not true at all for MLG since the prize pool is pretty small, but think of NASL or MLG finals, when 20k is on the line for your last game. How can you argue that the pressure doesn't change?
By saying chopping the money = less pressure, you're implying that MLG players feel that a $1000 difference in prize money is what is putting the pressure on them. It's not. Not even 1%.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On September 02 2011 13:21 Tektos wrote:
If it is still so prestigious to win an event regardless of prize money why don't all tournaments just offer 1st and 2nd place prizes to be the same?
Big 1st place prize makes good headlines.
|
On September 02 2011 13:24 FawkingGoomba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 13:23 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:19 FawkingGoomba wrote:On September 02 2011 13:17 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:16 FawkingGoomba wrote:On September 02 2011 13:15 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:10 intrigue wrote:
hmm... okay here's how i see it:
1. assured of having 50% of the winnings, both players can play more confidently and with less nerves. downside is that without pressure, we don't get to see the real "champion" who performs under stress.
2. even with split winnings, first place has definite benefits that second does not (fame, seedings, fulfilling fans' expectations) - it's extremely unlikely that a progamer (who exists purely because he is extremely competitive) will play much below their peak level. that would only happen if progamers were motivated 100% by money, which would be stupid. you can make more than the average pro working a minimum wage job.
3. specifically in the case of fenix and tt1, i can't see much fault in it. being on the same team means you train together a lot, encourage each other, and get very close (apparently not as close as i'd think though LOL)!!!! given the same situation i would definitely offer/take a split myself. #1 is my biggest issue really, the part about no pressure i'm all fine with players having equal monetary gains but I and i'd imagine most spectators would want to see the real champion win if there were two players with equal skill, but one who can play well under pressure and one who can't, the one who can play under pressure should be the winner. however, when chopping the prize, this doesn't happen.. It does happen. You both still want to win and will try your best. In the case of MLG, I'm pretty sure every single progamer would rather win the title than win the $5000. this isn't just confined to MLG imagine NASL or other big money tournaments and you're missing my point, the pressure isn't there yes they'll both try their best (or close to it) 99% of the time i'd imagine but the pressure criterion is STILL missing How is it still missing? I'm progamer "X" and I agree to split with my teammate. Am I suddenly less motivated to win the finals? I said PRESSURE, not motivation. Just look at my example. Two players with equal sc2 skills, but one with better mentality (one who can play well under pressure) and one who can't. If the prize is split evenly, a lot of the pressure is gone. Without chopping, the player with better mentality will win (assuming they have equal skill). With chopping, it becomes unclear and random. This probably is minimal or not true at all for MLG since the prize pool is pretty small, but think of NASL or MLG finals, when 20k is on the line for your last game. How can you argue that the pressure doesn't change? By saying chopping the money = less pressure, you're implying that MLG players feel that a $1000 difference in prize money is what is putting the pressure on them. It's not. Not even 1%.
Can you not read? I already said multiple times that this is not confined to MLG. Jesus..
|
On September 02 2011 13:14 FawkingGoomba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 13:14 curtdisis wrote:
Takes the whole excitement out of the game. This has to be made illegal How does it take the excitement out of it? Both players are still trying their best to win.
You realize that "both are still going to try their best" is at best as plausible as saying "they're not going to play their best", right? But that splitting the prize undeniably a) undermines the tournament (management, who put up prize & distribution for a reason) & deceives the fans, who didn't sign up for equal sharings, as well as removing incentive, so speaking out against sharing should be the preferred position in any case?
|
I don't mind it at all, i prefer to think players play for 51% pride and 49% prize money when it's a finals.
|
On September 02 2011 13:21 Tektos wrote:
If it is still so prestigious to win an event regardless of prize money why don't all tournaments just offer 1st and 2nd place prizes to be the same?
b/c not everyone thinks that way. For a poker example , when I used to play tourneys I loved poker but I 100% wanted to win the money. After it taking so long and putting in hard work by the time I made it to final 2 there was no way I was splitting I wanted first I worked too hard for it.
After a while though you might just be content with the money. All about the persons perspective at the time
|
On September 02 2011 13:20 enzym wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 13:16 FawkingGoomba wrote:On September 02 2011 13:15 Namu wrote:On September 02 2011 13:10 intrigue wrote:
hmm... okay here's how i see it:
1. assured of having 50% of the winnings, both players can play more confidently and with less nerves. downside is that without pressure, we don't get to see the real "champion" who performs under stress.
2. even with split winnings, first place has definite benefits that second does not (fame, seedings, fulfilling fans' expectations) - it's extremely unlikely that a progamer (who exists purely because he is extremely competitive) will play much below their peak level. that would only happen if progamers were motivated 100% by money, which would be stupid. you can make more than the average pro working a minimum wage job.
3. specifically in the case of fenix and tt1, i can't see much fault in it. being on the same team means you train together a lot, encourage each other, and get very close (apparently not as close as i'd think though LOL)!!!! given the same situation i would definitely offer/take a split myself. #1 is my biggest issue really, the part about no pressure i'm all fine with players having equal monetary gains but I and i'd imagine most spectators would want to see the real champion win if there were two players with equal skill, but one who can play well under pressure and one who can't, the one who can play under pressure should be the winner. however, when chopping the prize, this doesn't happen.. It does happen. You both still want to win and will try your best. In the case of MLG, I'm pretty sure every single progamer would rather win the title than win the $5000. Then why not remove the $5000 entirely or have it be equal shares for 1st-2nd from the beginning, and have the players decide if they want to give more to the winner? We'll see how much the audience, who're the ones making such events feasible at all, are going to like it.
a.) Not everyone competing in the tournament is on the same team.
b.) Everyone pretty much agrees a 50/50 split is idiotic and that the prizes are too top-heavy. If they even it out, it would be best for everyone.
c.) Progamers are not obligated to actually play good games for the audience, just like how an author is not obligated to write a good book for the readers. Progamers are just obligated to actually show a game, whether good or bad or mediocre.
d.) You've been watching games from players all this while who have split prizes without complaining or even noticing what's been going on. The only difference is that you now know about it.
|
On September 02 2011 13:22 rezoacken wrote:
I'm okay with a winner sharing a part of his winnings.
I think the amount should be his own choice and that whatever happens it is his money.
So no i'm against something where the players are "obligated" to split the money like some sort of contract or deal. But since this is your money I think you should be entitled to spend it as you wish and if you want to give some that is your call.
I think that's exactly it. No one should be forced into a prize sharing deal, and I would assume this would remain on the honor system between the two players. If I knew that EG (for example) made all their players split their winnings - that would lessen my respect/enjoyment of that team's success.
|
On September 02 2011 13:24 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2011 13:21 Tektos wrote:
If it is still so prestigious to win an event regardless of prize money why don't all tournaments just offer 1st and 2nd place prizes to be the same? Big 1st place prize makes good headlines.
Prize would imply the money they get.
So they're deceiving fans when this headline comes out "(PROGAMER) WINS $1MILLION PRIZE" when in actuality he got less than half of that after any team cuts and the share he gave to 2nd place winner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
