EPTTournament meritocracy: more opens, less invites - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ScyHigh
United Kingdom53 Posts
| ||
|
sunman1g
United States334 Posts
I'm tired of seeing famous pros who have been in the low-tier for a long time now keep getting invited over more talented people. | ||
|
Shrewmy
Australia199 Posts
Your use of meritocracy is correct in that players like InControl, as much as I love him, really shouldn't be given a free spot at MLG just because he did so well early on in SC2's release. | ||
|
robih
Austria1086 Posts
famous players -> lots of fans -> lots of viewers -> $$$ | ||
|
Badfatpanda
United States9719 Posts
| ||
|
Enhancer_
Canada320 Posts
Take a look at DH going on right now. So many of the players are unknown Europeans, and they've essentially been stomped. Many of these unkowns were given invites as well, it seems. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/DreamHack_Winter_2011#Results The problem you're trying to talk about doesn't actually happen. Taking a look at the players you're using as examples, they aren't even that unkown. HasuObs? NightEnd? Naama? Gatored (who's a recent breakout from being an unknown because he killed a few pros - this is how it should be)? These are all mid-tier pros and their level of popularity properly reflects this. | ||
|
imperator-xy
Germany1366 Posts
he wont attend big events because he has some kind of psychological illness. had lots of trouble with that at wc3. but anyways, i think there should be a much greater chance to get to the top in a short time. it all comes down to having a good ruling body like kespa. we would just have a small number of tournaments, but they would actually be huge and everyone would watch them (like OSL and MSL in korea). that wont happen though | ||
|
MavivaM
1535 Posts
On November 25 2011 04:45 imperator-xy wrote: i totally agree but you shouldnt count satiini in he wont attend big events because he has some kind of psychological illness. had lots of trouble with that at wc3. but anyways, i think there should be a much greater chance to get to the top in a short time. it all comes down to having a good ruling body like kespa. we would just have a small number of tournaments, but they would actually be huge and everyone would watch them (like OSL and MSL in korea). that wont happen though Lol wasn't that because of flight travel fear? I could be wrong although. Actually all of the players I mentioned (except for Titan but I feel he's good) aren't completely unknown players, especially if you look at their background: most of them were Wc3 players, some even particularly good like NightEnd plus the only competitive italian BW player beside of Cloud. It all comes down to a thing you wrote: reaching the top in a short amount of time. Once you are there you can decide to change plans for your life for a good amount of time, see Thorzain and Stephano for example. Otherwise most of them will most likely play for a short amount time, or being less dedicated after a year or such to then disappear. Obv I hope not. | ||
|
imperator-xy
Germany1366 Posts
On November 25 2011 04:55 MavivaM wrote: Lol wasn't that because of flight travel fear? I could be wrong although. Actually all of the players I mentioned (except for Titan but I feel he's good) aren't completely unknown players, especially if you look at their background: most of them were Wc3 players, some even particularly good like NightEnd plus the only competitive italian BW player beside of Cloud. It all comes down to a thing you wrote: reaching the top in a short amount of time. Once you are there you can decide to change plans for your life for a good amount of time, see Thorzain and Stephano for example. Otherwise most of them will most likely play for a short amount time, or being less dedicated after a year or such to then disappear. Obv I hope not. ye satiini has flight travel fear i think, but he has some more problems. once mTw even bought him a ticket for a ferry boat but he didnt attend. i guess he is scared of big crowds as well. but your right. if you once reach the top you will stay there and get invited to every tournament. for example TLO and WhiteRa are nice guys, but i dont think they are still on the same level as top foreigners or even koreans. maybe there are other players who deserve to get their spots, but who knows | ||
|
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
Always great to further my vocab  | ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
| ||
|
Leafs
Canada41 Posts
| ||
|
RoboBob
United States798 Posts
On November 25 2011 00:00 MavivaM wrote:  Titan. Orly.  StarEagle. Cytoplasm.  Gatored. NightEnD. Naama. Satiini.Do you know them? Gatored managed to beat both Axslav and GanZi at MLG Providence.Check who was the one who had to stop him. Do you think that they can't play on the same ground of let's say, Machine or iNcontroL?Is HasuObs unworthy of playing in big events unless he destroys an invitational? And he's already lucky since he's on a famous team, so people get to know him better.IEM Guangzhou: he gets invited thanks to Mana not attending, and he shows he can play against DIMAGA and other top players, he even gets a game out of Puma who should be a TvP specialist. He didn't won, but you can say that he played well. Jinro got invited and didn't even come out of the pool play, for example.First off, I would not call either Naama or Nightend "no names". Naama won a Dreamhack, for crying out loud. Nightend has been invited into several tournaments including Homestory, Assembly, and NASL. Same with Satiini, to a lesser extent. I think it's worth pointing out that Gatored was the ONLY new player to make a name for himself in the last 2 MLGs (Trimaster was 3 MLGs ago). Of course "lower tier" pros such as Incontrol and Axslav can falter to no-name GMs who burst on the scene. But the thing is, it just doesn't happen that often. It doesn't matter if its MLG, Dreamhack, or even GSL Code A qualifiers. SC2 is increasingly becoming a professionalized competition where amateurs don't stand a chance against pros in a BO3. I definitely think Titan has the possibility of becoming a breakout new low-tier pro, just like Trimaster and Gatored. I don't know the other players you mentioned, but it's probably the same thing with them. But we're not going to see a Trimaster break out and *win* a major tournament, we're going to see one of them break out of the open bracket and place somewhat decently. Honestly, I wished the SC2 scene worked like this. All LAN tournaments are invite only, with only a couple open qualifier spots per tournament. Then all online tournaments are open only. That way the online tournament scene could kinda be the "minor league" to the LAN's "major league". I think LAN tournaments are much easier to run when you have a set number of players (and matches) you know you need to take care of. The more players you add to the tournament, the more likely it is that someone is going to play a 1 hour 30 min BO3 and throw the entire broadcast off-schedule. That isn't a big deal for online tournaments, but it certainly is a huge deal for live events. | ||
|
D_K_night
Canada615 Posts
I were to host a mini-tourney...just run by myself and the necessary people(would that be an invitational, then?), and let's say I wanted the following format(prize pool of 3k which comes directly from my own pocket): - bo3 for X players - "last boss" who must be defeated - else he takes a chunk of the prize pool (eg. IdrA) I'm just making an example. I know full well that the amount of money for my tourney might not even be worth IdrA's time. Maybe some other well-known player would be interested in being the "last boss". But I'm also fearful of backlash, such as: - if all the money is coming directly from my wallet, I can do whatever the hell I want - but we all know that, this is not true at all. Other people's feelings must be considered or I will suffer the consequences. Anytime real money is involved, the last thing i want is someone finding out where I live, and threatening my family over a sc2 tourney. - you've inviting A, B, and C. so why are you punishing others by not inviting them? - why can't you host the tourney in a time-frame that's pleasing to everyone - what gives you the right to host a tourney? you're just a nobody, leave it to the people who know what they're doing Just need to put this out there. I want to do this, but it almost feels less risky to keep the prize money low, which also makes the exposure low too. I want this type of format, but I would hate to be shouted down by haters who feel I have no right to do what i want to do. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On November 25 2011 01:37 Sbrubbles wrote: The "random" aspect of SC2 can lead to "good" players (players who have demonstrated they're good in other tournaments) to get knocked out due to flukes. Also, there time and player stamina to take into account. I dislike your use of the word"meritocracy". Being able to win a fluke BO3 against a better opponent isn't meritocratic. Consistently placing well in tournaments (and thus being invited to invitationals) is meritocratic, so I'd say invitationals are more meritocratic than open tournaments. But that isn't why people get invited to invitationals is it, pretty clear it's not. I've been saying since the start more opens.. why not? I don't even like the MLG format placing some people with hardly any games to play compared to open. Just give seeded people the advantage in the bracket by not having to place against other seeds. Seriously if these guys are the best why shouldn't they be able to beat random people in series. It's as if in the World Cup they just put seeds into the round of 16. If the game is too random that a better player cannot reliably beat someone inferior in a bo3, to be honest it's broken and needs to be fixed. Otherwise it will be even worse in the future, it's already getting very random as it is. In BW a top player would simply not drop a series, even a short bo3 one, against the lower level pros. In SC2 even amateurs can take games off pro's at the moment. And it's certainly not from skills they are doing so. Gatored seems like a pretty good player btw. If some certain overhyped popular players had some of those wins idiots would be falling over themselves to praise it. On November 25 2011 05:44 D_K_night wrote: I have questions regarding tournament format and probably around the terminology as well. And also my own interest in hosting a tourney. I were to host a mini-tourney...just run by myself and the necessary people(would that be an invitational, then?), and let's say I wanted the following format(prize pool of 3k which comes directly from my own pocket): - bo3 for X players - "last boss" who must be defeated - else he takes a chunk of the prize pool (eg. IdrA) I'm just making an example. I know full well that the amount of money for my tourney might not even be worth IdrA's time. Maybe some other well-known player would be interested in being the "last boss". But I'm also fearful of backlash, such as: - if all the money is coming directly from my wallet, I can do whatever the hell I want - but we all know that, this is not true at all. Other people's feelings must be considered or I will suffer the consequences. Anytime real money is involved, the last thing i want is someone finding out where I live, and threatening my family over a sc2 tourney. - you've inviting A, B, and C. so why are you punishing others by not inviting them? - why can't you host the tourney in a time-frame that's pleasing to everyone - what gives you the right to host a tourney? you're just a nobody, leave it to the people who know what they're doing Just need to put this out there. I want to do this, but it almost feels less risky to keep the prize money low, which also makes the exposure low too. I want this type of format, but I would hate to be shouted down by haters who feel I have no right to do what i want to do. Why would you want to run a tournament where you are almost certainly just giving money to an arbitrary player for one series? sure it's your money but those guys do get enough chances | ||
|
sc2trainer
63 Posts
On November 25 2011 02:45 Chill wrote: It's a shame, but the most popular aren't necessarily the best. If a tournament had the lineup you mentioned from an open bracket, I would frankly not watch it. I really want to see the most popular players, not the best :X stfu chill User was banned for this post. | ||
|
ScyHigh
United Kingdom53 Posts
On November 25 2011 04:31 Shrewmy wrote: People should only be able to enter tournaments through their own efforts, just have open qualifiers either online or over a long period of time at local areas leading up to a grand final. Popular pros could still get their own time in the spotlight through team leagues, they shouldn't get a free spot just because of EG's massive marketing budget. You could still have invitationals, but that sort of system should be kept out of things like MLG. Your use of meritocracy is correct in that players like InControl, as much as I love him, really shouldn't be given a free spot at MLG just because he did so well early on in SC2's release. You realise that MLG has no invitational element other than the Korean invites right? | ||
|
Staboteur
Canada1873 Posts
I'm not asking because I can claim to know; I'm sincerely asking... and I think there's an argument to be made for peoples' emotional investment into games MAKING the games better even if the play itself is actually technically garbage. As an example, would you rather watch your big, tough older brother kickbox someone you didn't particularly like in high school, or would you rather watch an -actual- technical master kickboxer fight another master kickboxer? Are you going to watch the fight for the thrill of the fight and your emotional connection to the players involved, or are you going to watch for the technical mastery and brilliant tactical kickboxing that's going on? Take a series that recently finished in DreamHack a few hours ago (Don't worry, no spoilers :D) of Sheth vs ToD. I think you'd struggle to find someone who'd claim that those games weren't very entertaining, high tension and high excitement games. Was it because both players were macroing flawlessly and making brilliant, clean decisions? Hell no. If you've watched the games, it wouldn't take much over a diamond player to point out obvious mistakes made extra apparent when given the birds-eye view of a spectator. The games were entertaining because Sheth is hugely famous and expected to succeed / be good, but MrBitter right off the bat took a bold step and vouched for ToD as an equally skilled player. The match was entertaining not because either player never exceeded 400 minerals and both always had great army positioning, but it was entertaining because we as the spectators have a vested interest in seeing our preferred players succeed. Change the names of both players to Millenium.RainbowPrincess and Liquid'SecondLine and re-watch the replay from that perspective. Do you think that would be as exciting as the game with known people actually was? | ||
|
Sighstorm
Netherlands116 Posts
On November 25 2011 05:44 D_K_night wrote: I've been thinking a lot about this, although as a dreamer... i'm not rich enough.But I'm also fearful of backlash, such as: - if all the money is coming directly from my wallet, I can do whatever the hell I want - but we all know that, this is not true at all. Other people's feelings must be considered or I will suffer the consequences. Anytime real money is involved, the last thing i want is someone finding out where I live, and threatening my family over a sc2 tourney. - you've inviting A, B, and C. so why are you punishing others by not inviting them? - why can't you host the tourney in a time-frame that's pleasing to everyone - what gives you the right to host a tourney? you're just a nobody, leave it to the people who know what they're doing Just need to put this out there. I want to do this, but it almost feels less risky to keep the prize money low, which also makes the exposure low too. I want this type of format, but I would hate to be shouted down by haters who feel I have no right to do what i want to do. I believe most of the things you've mentioned won't get you a huge backlash. There will always be people bitching about stuff, but the majority will only welcome you spending your time, energy and money on a scene they love. The players you invite might affect the number of people that will watch your tournament, but there are enough tournaments at this point for people not to get mad about it and just move on to something else. There are plenty of tournaments that don't fit with peoples time frames. If people are passionate enough and you create an attractive tournement, they'll make time to watch it (and watching VODs can be done 24/7). If you chose an awkward time frame, you'll get less viewers. What is important is being able to execute your tournament properly (this cost money/time). If people don't get what they expect, they will get their pitchforks (especially if they've paid money for it). If the players have a hard time contacting admins, if the production or casting quality is lower then people expect, etc there will be backlash. Expectations depend on stuff like the invited players, prize pool, promotion, etc. Don't expect too be able to create a succesful tournement with a lot of appeal just by yourself... there are just to many other tournements out there. That said, i'd imagine there are plenty of people that want to volunteer. | ||
|
halvorg
Norway717 Posts
On November 25 2011 05:44 D_K_night wrote: I have questions regarding tournament format and probably around the terminology as well. And also my own interest in hosting a tourney. I were to host a mini-tourney...just run by myself and the necessary people(would that be an invitational, then?), and let's say I wanted the following format(prize pool of 3k which comes directly from my own pocket): - bo3 for X players - "last boss" who must be defeated - else he takes a chunk of the prize pool (eg. IdrA) I'm just making an example. I know full well that the amount of money for my tourney might not even be worth IdrA's time. Maybe some other well-known player would be interested in being the "last boss". But I'm also fearful of backlash, such as: - if all the money is coming directly from my wallet, I can do whatever the hell I want - but we all know that, this is not true at all. Other people's feelings must be considered or I will suffer the consequences. Anytime real money is involved, the last thing i want is someone finding out where I live, and threatening my family over a sc2 tourney. - you've inviting A, B, and C. so why are you punishing others by not inviting them? - why can't you host the tourney in a time-frame that's pleasing to everyone - what gives you the right to host a tourney? you're just a nobody, leave it to the people who know what they're doing Just need to put this out there. I want to do this, but it almost feels less risky to keep the prize money low, which also makes the exposure low too. I want this type of format, but I would hate to be shouted down by haters who feel I have no right to do what i want to do. I have no idea how to respond to this, is your impression of the community so bad? | ||
| ||
