|
On September 03 2011 09:48 Laevateinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 09:31 ReignFayth wrote:On September 03 2011 09:29 Laevateinn wrote:On September 03 2011 09:26 benjammin wrote:On September 03 2011 09:23 Laevateinn wrote:On September 03 2011 09:01 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
From the few pages I've looked at, the only argument against these deals that I could find was that it MIGHT make the final games less fun to spectate.
Does anybody have an actually concrete argument? Except, you know, we have one obvious example of the final games being less fun to spectate because of this, right in front of us. did you spectate those games? I like watching players playing their best and using their best strategies. 1 Base carrier doesn't apply to any of those. If I wanted to watch players dicking around, I wouldn't watch a tournament. yeah cuz select didn't dick around at all going battlecruiser against incontrol fairly early Those were the finals?
what the fuck does it matter, it was on stage
|
On September 03 2011 09:43 applejuice wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 09:36 Fubi wrote:On September 03 2011 09:33 applejuice wrote:On September 03 2011 09:30 ReignFayth wrote:On September 03 2011 09:27 Saturnize wrote:
Been reading through most of this thread. I see the argument "well its their money they can do what they want with it so deal with it!!!!!!!!!!" a lot in this thread as if we are arguing about the ethics of it vs whether it is something that will degrade competitive SC2 in the long run/make it less exciting if there is always going to be that stigma of two 1/2 placers agreeing to split the stash. While it may be with in their rights to do whatever they want to with the money, it does make competitive SC2 look really lame compared to any other competitive event like golf or poker when you have people agreeing to throw matches in order to get a share of the 1st prize. Do I blame these actions when you look at how much a top 10 SC2 progamer makes in relation to a sub 100 golfer makes? Of course not! When you get bigger prizepools and more cash finishes I think that there will be less of an incentive to "rig matches" than there will be in a tournament with a smaller prizepool.
Most of the people in this thread want to argue the ethics/morals of what people do with their own money vs if it is good for the professional SC2 scene in the long run. I think that if SC2 is ever to be taken "seriously" people need to stop "fixing" these games.
just my 2 cents. once again nobody talked about fixing games or rigging matches... just altering the prize money for 1st and 2nd It's like playing poker without real money to back it up. It doesn't work. It's a moot point whether the match is actually fixed or not, the competition is going to suck either way. Not a moot point. The difference is, fixing games and rigging matches are usually illegal or at the minimum, against tournament rules, but there is no rules regarding splitting your prize money. The money is yours and you can split it however you want. ...but there is no rules regarding splitting your prize money. The money is yours and you can split it however you want.While your straw man is intriguing, the split you are referring to occurs before the match begins, not after. It's a fix.
pretty much. you're saying to split money you don't yet have, creating a third party in the agreement between you and the tournament holders who you signed a contract with. And since you don't tell the tournament holders beforehand, and since they can't know about this deal and modify their contract, its fraud..
Or else, why would any SC2 player keep it from the tournament holders. I assume that if its not wrong, people would just tell the tournament holders, "hey, me and my teammate have an agreement to split the winnings". Why don't SC players do this, so that the tournament holders know what they're paying for, i.e. two people who will not play competitively and just split the prize after? because they know they will get told they can't compete as long as they have that agreement.
If you can't, there's no need to be rude.
If you can't make a good counterargument, call the other person rude. makes sense.
Again I ask, why don't these "pros" tell the tournament holders about the deal so that the tournament holders have FULL DISCLOSURE of what they're paying for? I can see bullshit a mile away, I used to have a grandparent with the same mentality of "what they don't know is fine, as long as we make money".
I don't find it amusing that you're this base.
|
Christ enough with the semantic bullshit. When someone says "fix", "rig" its the same as two players agreeing to share the prize pool BEFORE the game therefore "f-i-x-i-n-g" the outcome, just like applejuice said. One more thing. If they decided to share AFTER the event this would be a non issue.
|
I feel like people who complain about spectators getting a "worse show" because two people decided to be friendly and share money instead of the loser being shafted are being selfish, unreasonable, and irrational. There's no way you would be able to stop it from happening, and saying people shouldn't be allowed to make a deal to share money is ridiculous. Do you care so much about getting a good show that you don't care about the players?
Why is there such a negative connotation involved with "deals" around here? The original post already plays "deal making" as some huge thing simply by calling it "deal making". Think of it this way: Should sharing really be illegal?
|
On September 03 2011 09:48 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 09:43 applejuice wrote:On September 03 2011 09:36 Fubi wrote:On September 03 2011 09:33 applejuice wrote:On September 03 2011 09:30 ReignFayth wrote:On September 03 2011 09:27 Saturnize wrote:
Been reading through most of this thread. I see the argument "well its their money they can do what they want with it so deal with it!!!!!!!!!!" a lot in this thread as if we are arguing about the ethics of it vs whether it is something that will degrade competitive SC2 in the long run/make it less exciting if there is always going to be that stigma of two 1/2 placers agreeing to split the stash. While it may be with in their rights to do whatever they want to with the money, it does make competitive SC2 look really lame compared to any other competitive event like golf or poker when you have people agreeing to throw matches in order to get a share of the 1st prize. Do I blame these actions when you look at how much a top 10 SC2 progamer makes in relation to a sub 100 golfer makes? Of course not! When you get bigger prizepools and more cash finishes I think that there will be less of an incentive to "rig matches" than there will be in a tournament with a smaller prizepool.
Most of the people in this thread want to argue the ethics/morals of what people do with their own money vs if it is good for the professional SC2 scene in the long run. I think that if SC2 is ever to be taken "seriously" people need to stop "fixing" these games.
just my 2 cents. once again nobody talked about fixing games or rigging matches... just altering the prize money for 1st and 2nd It's like playing poker without real money to back it up. It doesn't work. It's a moot point whether the match is actually fixed or not, the competition is going to suck either way. Not a moot point. The difference is, fixing games and rigging matches are usually illegal or at the minimum, against tournament rules, but there is no rules regarding splitting your prize money. The money is yours and you can split it however you want. ...but there is no rules regarding splitting your prize money. The money is yours and you can split it however you want.While your straw man is intriguing, the split you are referring to occurs before the match begins, not after. It's a fix. pretty much. you're saying to split money you don't yet have, creating a third party in the agreement between you and the tournament holders who you signed a contract with. And since you don't tell the tournament holders beforehand, and since they can't know about this deal and modify their contract, its fraud.. Or else, why would any SC2 player keep it from the tournament holders. I assume that if its not wrong, people would just tell the tournament holders, "hey, me and my teammate have an agreement to split the winnings". Why don't SC players do this, so that the tournament holders know what they're paying for, i.e. two people who will not play competitively and just split the prize after? because they know they will get told they can't compete as long as they have that agreement. If you can't make a good counterargument, call the other person rude. makes sense. Again I ask, why don't these "pros" tell the tournament holders about the deal so that the tournament holders have FULL DISCLOSURE of what they're paying for? I can see bullshit a mile away, I used to have a grandparent with the same mentality of "what they don't know is fine, as long as we make money". I don't find it amusing that you're this base.
Using hyperbole in comparing my questioning stance to murder is rude. I apologize if you interpreted that as an ad hominem attack on you; I have no idea if you are generally a rude person or an awfully nice person.
Can you provide an explanation of why you find this wrong or not? If not, say so please and I will stop bothering you, and hope someone else has a satisfactory explanation. If so, describe it please.
|
On September 03 2011 09:48 ReignFayth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 09:48 Laevateinn wrote:On September 03 2011 09:31 ReignFayth wrote:On September 03 2011 09:29 Laevateinn wrote:On September 03 2011 09:26 benjammin wrote:On September 03 2011 09:23 Laevateinn wrote:On September 03 2011 09:01 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
From the few pages I've looked at, the only argument against these deals that I could find was that it MIGHT make the final games less fun to spectate.
Does anybody have an actually concrete argument? Except, you know, we have one obvious example of the final games being less fun to spectate because of this, right in front of us. did you spectate those games? I like watching players playing their best and using their best strategies. 1 Base carrier doesn't apply to any of those. If I wanted to watch players dicking around, I wouldn't watch a tournament. yeah cuz select didn't dick around at all going battlecruiser against incontrol fairly early Those were the finals? what the fuck does it matter, it was on stage
You can shout all you want about the glory being enough incentive, but when Select goes Battlecruiser in a match that's worth 600$, he shows that that's not enough incentive for him to play his best, and neither is the higher placing in terms of "glory". If you compare it to a finals, where the potential money is higher, and the potential glory is higher, this shows that evening out the scores takes off a lot of the pressure, and the pressure and mindgames are a big part of the competition for me.
|
On September 03 2011 09:51 Zeke50100 wrote:
I feel like people who complain about spectators getting a "worse show" because two people decided to be friendly and share money instead of the loser being shafted are being selfish, unreasonable, and irrational. There's no way you would be able to stop it from happening, and saying people shouldn't be allowed to make a deal to share money is ridiculous. Do you care so much about getting a good show that you don't care about the players?
Why is there such a negative connotation involved with "deals" around here? The original post already plays "deal making" as some huge thing simply by calling it "deal making". Think of it this way: Should sharing really be illegal?
because you pay hundreds of dollars to see a pewee league football team where there's no real stake involved unlike pro football, amirite? Oh wait, you don't.
Simple, If they want to share, why not be up front and tell everyone beforehand, sponsors and crowd alike.
We keep coming back to this same spot. why don't they make their deal public if its not wrong? Why don't they make it public if it doesn't matter? Quite simply because it does matter and people won't take it seriously.
How serious can you take a game between two people who have nothing to lose?
@thepacifist
I've already explained multiple times why its wrong. So I'm going to ignore you now as you keep asking "why" after it has been explained. Go ahead and keep posting "why". I will not pay attention anymore because I've explained it in good detail a number of times already. You're the one not actually reading the thread and just posting "why" over and over.
|
On September 03 2011 09:51 Saturnize wrote:
Christ enough with the semantic bullshit. When someone says "fix", "rig" its the same as two players agreeing to share the prize pool BEFORE the game therefore "f-i-x-i-n-g" the outcome, just like applejuice said. One more thing. If they decided to share AFTER the event this would be a non issue.
you are not fixing the outcome, you are changing what 1st place gets and 2nd place gets, the match still plays as usual, nothing changes for spectators or anyone than the 2 players earnings in the end
|
Honestly, you can't really control the players with what they do with their money. It sucks but that's the way it has to be.
|
On September 03 2011 09:51 Zeke50100 wrote:
I feel like people who complain about spectators getting a "worse show" because two people decided to be friendly and share money instead of the loser being shafted are being selfish, unreasonable, and irrational. There's no way you would be able to stop it from happening, and saying people shouldn't be allowed to make a deal to share money is ridiculous. Do you care so much about getting a good show that you don't care about the players?
What is this?... I don't even...
Are you saying that people who would rather see a solid match with no "predetermined" outcome are selfish because they don't care about joe schmoe XYZ who needs to pay his rent? Most everyone in the progaming arena knew what they were getting into well before they decided to be a progamer. But I think I get your point and actually I agree... How about we award everyone who made it in the top 8 the same prize money regardless of where they finish after the fact. Communist Starcraft!
|
On September 03 2011 09:59 Saturnize wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 09:51 Zeke50100 wrote:
I feel like people who complain about spectators getting a "worse show" because two people decided to be friendly and share money instead of the loser being shafted are being selfish, unreasonable, and irrational. There's no way you would be able to stop it from happening, and saying people shouldn't be allowed to make a deal to share money is ridiculous. Do you care so much about getting a good show that you don't care about the players? What is this?... I don't even... Are you saying that people who would rather see a solid match with no "predetermined" outcome are selfish because they don't care about joe schmoe XYZ who needs to pay his rent? Most everyone in the progaming arena knew what they were getting into well before they decided to be a progamer. But I think I get your point and actually I agree... How about we award everyone who made it in the top 8 the same prize money regardless of where they finish after the fact. Communist Starcraft!
clearly your brain can't seem to process the difference between match fixing and deal making so you might as well just drop the subject
this is getting really annoying to see you not learning lol
|
On September 03 2011 09:56 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 09:51 Zeke50100 wrote:
I feel like people who complain about spectators getting a "worse show" because two people decided to be friendly and share money instead of the loser being shafted are being selfish, unreasonable, and irrational. There's no way you would be able to stop it from happening, and saying people shouldn't be allowed to make a deal to share money is ridiculous. Do you care so much about getting a good show that you don't care about the players?
Why is there such a negative connotation involved with "deals" around here? The original post already plays "deal making" as some huge thing simply by calling it "deal making". Think of it this way: Should sharing really be illegal? because you pay hundreds of dollars to see a pewee league football team where there's no real stake involved unlike pro football, amirite? Oh wait, you don't. Simple, If they want to share, why not be up front and tell everyone beforehand, sponsors and crowd alike. We keep coming back to this same spot. why don't they make their deal public if its not wrong? Why don't they make it public if it doesn't matter? Quite simply because it does matter and people won't take it seriously. How serious can you take a game between two people who have nothing to lose?
Why don't they make it public if it doesn't matter? Because obviously some people have a bad opinion of it, so why not keep it discreet?
How serious can you take a game between two people who have nothing to lose? About as seriously as I can take a finals game between two people on the same team. This may not apply to everybody. However, teamkills seem weird to me because they're between two players who have undoubtedly played countless of games against each other, and they know better than anybody else who the better player is. One best of 7 (or whatever) isn't as large a sample size as the hundreds of games they may have played together.
If they've got nothing on the line, they can still make it entertaining.
However, maybe it will be significantly less entertaining. Maybe not. I don't know. I'm just trying to answer the question you posed =P
|
On September 03 2011 09:57 ReignFayth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 09:51 Saturnize wrote:
Christ enough with the semantic bullshit. When someone says "fix", "rig" its the same as two players agreeing to share the prize pool BEFORE the game therefore "f-i-x-i-n-g" the outcome, just like applejuice said. One more thing. If they decided to share AFTER the event this would be a non issue. you are not fixing the outcome, you are changing what 1st place gets and 2nd place gets, the match still plays as usual, nothing changes for spectators or anyone than the 2 players earnings in the end
Thats true. You're changing what 1st and 2nd place gets. Therefore, the tournament has the right to make first place worth 10,000, while second place is worth 10,000. See a problem with that? Why doesn't a tourney do that in the first place? Answer this and your own question about the ethics of changing their tournaments reward pool has a glaringly obvious answer. The tournament has no decision in the money thats still in their possession.
We all agree that if a team player agrees to give money after the match, its fine. There's no problem once it becomes their money, they can go nuts with it. Beforehand, you're manipulating the winnings the tournament is giving out That alone should tell you its wrong.
or maybe your parents taught you that manipulation is A-Ok, in which case, we don't really have anything further to discuss.
|
On September 03 2011 08:59 Proflo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 08:50 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 03 2011 08:43 Proflo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 03 2011 05:52 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2011 05:17 hacky wrote:
I don't understand any of this animosity toward prize splits. If both parties agree and it only affects both parties in terms of prizes, what business do you have with what they do? They've already earned their keep. They didn't earn any of it, if the tournament wanted to offer those prize amount they'd make the first and second prize equal. At the same time, you lose your incentive to practice hard, and it simply doesn't mean as much. It kills the competitive spirit, we've already seen TT1 not give a shit about the finals he was in. So please, no matter how much people "want the glory," there's not even close to as much on the line. And yes, I'd rather have the progamers be shit out of luck with "only" the second place prize money. Get out of the damn profession, shit. Don't get me wrong, I've considered doing the same thing when there was a ton of money on the line, but I didn't, and at the same time when I was considering it I felt I was doing something incredibly wrong. Hypocritical... yes, but that doesn't mean it should be endorsed. On September 03 2011 06:47 ReignFayth wrote:
how the hell do you explain that people will lose their incentive to practice hard, that makes no sense ^^ seconded.... if you've made it to the finals of such a large tournament then you haven't done it without practicing in the first place, and this would in no way make people lose their incentive to practice... LOL .... There are really only two things wrong with this situation... It had nothing to do wtih practicing in the first place, learn to read. It's talking about preparation for the actual finals. Analyzing your opponent's builds. Asking around for top quality practice partners to practice that matchup in particular. Etc. "At the same time, you lose your incentive to practice hard, and it simply doesn't mean as much." ^yeah that statement definitely has nothing to do with practicing...? He commented on your statement and I seconded his opinion. If you would kindly read my entire post (I will admit it is overly long) you would see very little of what i talked about had anything to do with the "lack of incentive to practice" On a side note, i do believe that i can read at at least an 8th grade level =/.
Practice hard specifically for finals =! practice hard for the tournament in general.
|
There's a difference between "This guy is playing to win $50,000" and "This guy is playing to win." The first case happens maybe 1-2 times a month tops, and people get pretty excited about it. The second case happens thousands of times a day and, on average, does not draw nearly as many viewers.
I'd prefer it if players kept the stakes of their matches public. I don't want to see what amounts to two successful guys running into each other on the ladder if it's billed as a tournament final.
|
I don't get why the match would be any less interesting. People are riding on the notion that games will not be as entertaining or players won't play their best, but they forget that getting first place rather than getting second place has benefits other than just money. If you win the GSL, you won't care if you won $30000 or $15000 because you won the fricken GSL. An immeasurable amount of fame comes with placing first instead of second, so I don't even know why it's a problem.
Or would everybody like to get second place rather than first if you won't be paid more for it?
|
full proof of the elitist nature of the pro players.
|
On September 03 2011 10:07 Zeke50100 wrote:
I don't get why the match would be any less interesting. People are riding on the notion that games will not be as entertaining or players won't play their best, but they forget that getting first place rather than getting second place has benefits other than just money. If you win the GSL, you won't care if you won $30000 or $15000 because you won the fricken GSL. An immeasurable amount of fame comes with placing first instead of second, so I don't even know why it's a problem.
Or would everybody like to get second place rather than first if you won't be paid more for it?
There are actually some really greedy people out there who are willing to half-ass games. If one player really doesn't think they will win well, that's another reason why they would do it.
|
Btw, I was always under the impression that team members give a large portion of their prize winnings to their teams, and the team distributes this money among other players. In return, the players get a regular salary, practice partners, housing if need be, etc.
Example (with completely made up numbers!):
Huk has a salary of 20,000 a year. Huk wins 80,000 at Dreamhack. 40,000 goes to TeamLiquid, the other 40,000 goes to Huk himself. TeamLiquid distributes 5,000 to every other player on the team, on top of their usual salary (ALTERNATIVELY: the 40,000 goes into a savings fund that can be used to increase salaries next year, and stuff like that). TeamLiquid also covers costs of living for Huk, and continues to provide him coaching and practice partners until he eventually gets picked up by EG.
Does it actually work that way? If not, does it ever work that way, for any teams? I seriously don't know
|
On September 03 2011 10:09 LloydRays wrote:
full proof of the elitist nature of the pro players.
if it weren't for this elitist nature u're talking about, achieving pro status wouldn't be possible
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
