|
On December 30 2011 03:03 ES.Genie wrote:
There are good reasons to like Starcraft, there are no good reasons for that "national tie" thing.
There are perfectly good reasons for the whole "national tie" thing. Someone who is born and raised in the same region as you is more likely to have a similar cultural background as you. This leads people to deduce that those born in the same nation are easier to relate to, in some sense.
The argument isn't air tight or anything, but there's at least a train of thought that can be followed. In addition, it's not like supporting people from your region over those from a different one is a bad thing in SC2. This sort of thinking generates some great story lines, especially with the whole Korea vs. the world thing.
|
On December 30 2011 03:02 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 30 2011 01:05 masterbreti wrote:On December 30 2011 00:15 seiferoth10 wrote:On December 29 2011 23:52 masterbreti wrote:On December 29 2011 23:43 Ventor wrote:
All I know is if they recruit another Korean, when mouz loses to them again, everyone will bash EG because they have korean players. Which isn't right. TL has the same amount of Koreans and get revered for their victories. I guess it's the fact that most of the outspoken members of this community are European and want to see European champions. I think its more that just that. TL has never poached a player on another team before in sc2. EG has done it many times, though have been unsucessful in doing so except in the case of puma and HuK. TL's Koreans have been recruited usually though more than friendly means with both the former team and liquid. from what I understand. Nazgul was approached by TheWind to recruit Zenio. EG does have a bad reputation among the esports scene's. With many of their players having their fair share of haters, and people who dislike their business ethics. Do you know what poach means? You can't poach players. Players think for themselves. Players decide where they want to go. I know what it means. When EG offers you a six figure salary that is almost double what most teams can offer you. It becomes a lot more then thinking for themselves. HuK was rather pressured into the situaition. Being that he would be really well off in terms of money. If EG and TL were offering the same salary to HuK. It would no doubt have changed the outcome of the result of where HuK went. So people dislike EG because EG is using their resources to their fullest potential? That's hardly a good reason to dislike EG, in my opinion, but okay. If you don't like EG (or the Yankees or whatever token rich sports team you want to refer to) because they have money, fine. But EG did nothing illegal to obtain their acquisitions, which is the important part. Business is business. If you would like to obtain a player and have something better to offer them than their current team can offer, then it makes all the sense in the world to do just that so that they play for your team. You want to create a good team (whether that means winning things, being visible in the scene, having big personalities, whatever), and so you're going to play to win when it comes to acquiring ideal players. Obviously, the fans of the old team who lost their player to EG are going to be sour, but that's expected. Sucks for them, but it's not like EG did anything wrong. EDIT: Anyways, I'm ridiculously excited to see who the new player is!  - The people that dislike rich teams have a very good reason, they use their economic resources to aggregate a superior talent pool, giving them an unfair off-field advantage. - Sports fans watch to be entertained, and one of the most significant elements in sports entertainment is the perception that a match is between evenly matched opponents. Me playing a game against Idra would be ludicrous, and while the first couple games would have hilarity value it would quickly get boring; because the outcome is predictable. - This effect is somewhat countered by the fact that some viewers will choose to associate with a "winning" team, and will gravitate towards teams with an unfair economic advantage and support them - but overall large differences in the resources available to teams detracts from the entertainment value of the sport as a whole. - It could be argued that this leads to an "underdog" dynamic where the dominant team (with the unfair advantage) wins most of the time but occasionally (the end of the Red Sox curse, for instance), an underdog causes an upset that increases the compelling nature of the sport. I would argue, however, that this fails to balance the loss of "potential" entertainment value caused by the boring dominance of an economically dominant team for decades (the Yankees). "Business is business" - The assumption that underlies this statement is that teams with an unfair advantage will act on their advantage. Ok, sure, but this is pretty self evident. What isn't as apparent is that the managerial structure of teams are caught in one of the classic catch -22's of capitalism - that is the short term decisions necessary to keep pace with competitors are deleterious to the overall industry/scene/whatever. In this case, using an overriding economic advantage to diminish the entertainment value of esports is a necessary but carcinogenic decision. The reason is complicated, but suffice to say that the job of team administrators is to sell audiences to advertisers and sponsors, and while obviously the long-term death of esports isn't in their best interest their decisions are framed by short term problems.
Christ, how's it an unfair advantage, when they have got their money resources from success, if anything that would be a FAIR advantage. It's not like they cheated or got their money illegally.
With ur logic I guess u support all small and unsuccessful teams because they have a "disadvantage" that they aren't successful.
Let's say if liquid gets more successful and better, more sponsors and money etc you would call that an "unfair advantage" that they got more money than other not as successful teams and know you won't like em. you really don't make sense.
|
On December 30 2011 03:19 skrotcyk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:02 Almonjin wrote:On December 30 2011 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 30 2011 01:05 masterbreti wrote:On December 30 2011 00:15 seiferoth10 wrote:On December 29 2011 23:52 masterbreti wrote:On December 29 2011 23:43 Ventor wrote:
All I know is if they recruit another Korean, when mouz loses to them again, everyone will bash EG because they have korean players. Which isn't right. TL has the same amount of Koreans and get revered for their victories. I guess it's the fact that most of the outspoken members of this community are European and want to see European champions. I think its more that just that. TL has never poached a player on another team before in sc2. EG has done it many times, though have been unsucessful in doing so except in the case of puma and HuK. TL's Koreans have been recruited usually though more than friendly means with both the former team and liquid. from what I understand. Nazgul was approached by TheWind to recruit Zenio. EG does have a bad reputation among the esports scene's. With many of their players having their fair share of haters, and people who dislike their business ethics. Do you know what poach means? You can't poach players. Players think for themselves. Players decide where they want to go. I know what it means. When EG offers you a six figure salary that is almost double what most teams can offer you. It becomes a lot more then thinking for themselves. HuK was rather pressured into the situaition. Being that he would be really well off in terms of money. If EG and TL were offering the same salary to HuK. It would no doubt have changed the outcome of the result of where HuK went. So people dislike EG because EG is using their resources to their fullest potential? That's hardly a good reason to dislike EG, in my opinion, but okay. If you don't like EG (or the Yankees or whatever token rich sports team you want to refer to) because they have money, fine. But EG did nothing illegal to obtain their acquisitions, which is the important part. Business is business. If you would like to obtain a player and have something better to offer them than their current team can offer, then it makes all the sense in the world to do just that so that they play for your team. You want to create a good team (whether that means winning things, being visible in the scene, having big personalities, whatever), and so you're going to play to win when it comes to acquiring ideal players. Obviously, the fans of the old team who lost their player to EG are going to be sour, but that's expected. Sucks for them, but it's not like EG did anything wrong. EDIT: Anyways, I'm ridiculously excited to see who the new player is! - The people that dislike rich teams have a very good reason, they use their economic resources to aggregate a superior talent pool, giving them an unfair off-field advantage. - Sports fans watch to be entertained, and one of the most significant elements in sports entertainment is the perception that a match is between evenly matched opponents. Me playing a game against Idra would be ludicrous, and while the first couple games would have hilarity value it would quickly get boring; because the outcome is predictable. - This effect is somewhat countered by the fact that some viewers will choose to associate with a "winning" team, and will gravitate towards teams with an unfair economic advantage and support them - but overall large differences in the resources available to teams detracts from the entertainment value of the sport as a whole. - It could be argued that this leads to an "underdog" dynamic where the dominant team (with the unfair advantage) wins most of the time but occasionally (the end of the Red Sox curse, for instance), an underdog causes an upset that increases the compelling nature of the sport. I would argue, however, that this fails to balance the loss of "potential" entertainment value caused by the boring dominance of an economically dominant team for decades (the Yankees). "Business is business" - The assumption that underlies this statement is that teams with an unfair advantage will act on their advantage. Ok, sure, but this is pretty self evident. What isn't as apparent is that the managerial structure of teams are caught in one of the classic catch -22's of capitalism - that is the short term decisions necessary to keep pace with competitors are deleterious to the overall industry/scene/whatever. In this case, using an overriding economic advantage to diminish the entertainment value of esports is a necessary but carcinogenic decision. The reason is complicated, but suffice to say that the job of team administrators is to sell audiences to advertisers and sponsors, and while obviously the long-term death of esports isn't in their best interest their decisions are framed by short term problems. Christ, how's it an unfair advantage, when they have got their money resources from success, if anything that would be a FAIR advantage. It's not like they cheated or got their money illegally. With ur logic I guess u support all small and unsuccessful teams because they have a "disadvantage" that they aren't successful.
Yeah and he supports amateur over pro, because pro has money to avoid work and he can play sc2 more than an amateur, so that's unfair
|
Well I have a rational reason to like a team thats is from my town. If a winning team comes from my hometown everytime this winning team is mentioned I can say: ''Hey! Im from the same town as that team and I visited it a few times was really cool'' or something alike. A: this makes you feel good because you are somewhat related to a winning team. B: It makes great conversation. <- Rational reason for liking something from the same region.
|
On December 30 2011 03:19 skrotcyk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:02 Almonjin wrote:On December 30 2011 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 30 2011 01:05 masterbreti wrote:On December 30 2011 00:15 seiferoth10 wrote:On December 29 2011 23:52 masterbreti wrote:On December 29 2011 23:43 Ventor wrote:
All I know is if they recruit another Korean, when mouz loses to them again, everyone will bash EG because they have korean players. Which isn't right. TL has the same amount of Koreans and get revered for their victories. I guess it's the fact that most of the outspoken members of this community are European and want to see European champions. I think its more that just that. TL has never poached a player on another team before in sc2. EG has done it many times, though have been unsucessful in doing so except in the case of puma and HuK. TL's Koreans have been recruited usually though more than friendly means with both the former team and liquid. from what I understand. Nazgul was approached by TheWind to recruit Zenio. EG does have a bad reputation among the esports scene's. With many of their players having their fair share of haters, and people who dislike their business ethics. Do you know what poach means? You can't poach players. Players think for themselves. Players decide where they want to go. I know what it means. When EG offers you a six figure salary that is almost double what most teams can offer you. It becomes a lot more then thinking for themselves. HuK was rather pressured into the situaition. Being that he would be really well off in terms of money. If EG and TL were offering the same salary to HuK. It would no doubt have changed the outcome of the result of where HuK went. So people dislike EG because EG is using their resources to their fullest potential? That's hardly a good reason to dislike EG, in my opinion, but okay. If you don't like EG (or the Yankees or whatever token rich sports team you want to refer to) because they have money, fine. But EG did nothing illegal to obtain their acquisitions, which is the important part. Business is business. If you would like to obtain a player and have something better to offer them than their current team can offer, then it makes all the sense in the world to do just that so that they play for your team. You want to create a good team (whether that means winning things, being visible in the scene, having big personalities, whatever), and so you're going to play to win when it comes to acquiring ideal players. Obviously, the fans of the old team who lost their player to EG are going to be sour, but that's expected. Sucks for them, but it's not like EG did anything wrong. EDIT: Anyways, I'm ridiculously excited to see who the new player is! - The people that dislike rich teams have a very good reason, they use their economic resources to aggregate a superior talent pool, giving them an unfair off-field advantage. - Sports fans watch to be entertained, and one of the most significant elements in sports entertainment is the perception that a match is between evenly matched opponents. Me playing a game against Idra would be ludicrous, and while the first couple games would have hilarity value it would quickly get boring; because the outcome is predictable. - This effect is somewhat countered by the fact that some viewers will choose to associate with a "winning" team, and will gravitate towards teams with an unfair economic advantage and support them - but overall large differences in the resources available to teams detracts from the entertainment value of the sport as a whole. - It could be argued that this leads to an "underdog" dynamic where the dominant team (with the unfair advantage) wins most of the time but occasionally (the end of the Red Sox curse, for instance), an underdog causes an upset that increases the compelling nature of the sport. I would argue, however, that this fails to balance the loss of "potential" entertainment value caused by the boring dominance of an economically dominant team for decades (the Yankees). "Business is business" - The assumption that underlies this statement is that teams with an unfair advantage will act on their advantage. Ok, sure, but this is pretty self evident. What isn't as apparent is that the managerial structure of teams are caught in one of the classic catch -22's of capitalism - that is the short term decisions necessary to keep pace with competitors are deleterious to the overall industry/scene/whatever. In this case, using an overriding economic advantage to diminish the entertainment value of esports is a necessary but carcinogenic decision. The reason is complicated, but suffice to say that the job of team administrators is to sell audiences to advertisers and sponsors, and while obviously the long-term death of esports isn't in their best interest their decisions are framed by short term problems. Christ, how's it an unfair advantage, when they have got their money resources from success, if anything that would be a FAIR advantage. It's not like they cheated or got their money illegally. With ur logic I guess u support all small and unsuccessful teams because they have a "disadvantage" that they aren't successful. Let's say if liquid gets more successful and better, more sponsors and money etc you would call that an "unfair advantage" that they got more money than other not as successful teams and know you won't like em. you really don't make sense.
I don't think you understand, "unfair" I'm using in the sense that they have a greater probability of victory than their opponent because of factors outside the game. It has nothing to do with the legality/illegality of this advantage at all, or any of the ethical ideas whatsoever. That said, some teams do have this kind of advantage, and regardless of whether it is the result of success or not it detracts from the future entertainment value of the sport (see my prior argument).
"Let's say if liquid gets more successful and better, more sponsors and money etc you would call that an "unfair advantage" that they got more money than other not as successful teams and know you won't like em. you really don't make sense."
Yes, that would be an unfair advantage from a technical point of view. All I'm doing is recognizing that sports don't occur in a vacuum, and that steps have to be taken to mitigate the outside influence on the game for it to be fun. Physical sports have not been very successful in this over the years.
|
On December 30 2011 03:24 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:19 skrotcyk wrote:On December 30 2011 03:02 Almonjin wrote:On December 30 2011 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 30 2011 01:05 masterbreti wrote:On December 30 2011 00:15 seiferoth10 wrote:On December 29 2011 23:52 masterbreti wrote:On December 29 2011 23:43 Ventor wrote:
All I know is if they recruit another Korean, when mouz loses to them again, everyone will bash EG because they have korean players. Which isn't right. TL has the same amount of Koreans and get revered for their victories. I guess it's the fact that most of the outspoken members of this community are European and want to see European champions. I think its more that just that. TL has never poached a player on another team before in sc2. EG has done it many times, though have been unsucessful in doing so except in the case of puma and HuK. TL's Koreans have been recruited usually though more than friendly means with both the former team and liquid. from what I understand. Nazgul was approached by TheWind to recruit Zenio. EG does have a bad reputation among the esports scene's. With many of their players having their fair share of haters, and people who dislike their business ethics. Do you know what poach means? You can't poach players. Players think for themselves. Players decide where they want to go. I know what it means. When EG offers you a six figure salary that is almost double what most teams can offer you. It becomes a lot more then thinking for themselves. HuK was rather pressured into the situaition. Being that he would be really well off in terms of money. If EG and TL were offering the same salary to HuK. It would no doubt have changed the outcome of the result of where HuK went. So people dislike EG because EG is using their resources to their fullest potential? That's hardly a good reason to dislike EG, in my opinion, but okay. If you don't like EG (or the Yankees or whatever token rich sports team you want to refer to) because they have money, fine. But EG did nothing illegal to obtain their acquisitions, which is the important part. Business is business. If you would like to obtain a player and have something better to offer them than their current team can offer, then it makes all the sense in the world to do just that so that they play for your team. You want to create a good team (whether that means winning things, being visible in the scene, having big personalities, whatever), and so you're going to play to win when it comes to acquiring ideal players. Obviously, the fans of the old team who lost their player to EG are going to be sour, but that's expected. Sucks for them, but it's not like EG did anything wrong. EDIT: Anyways, I'm ridiculously excited to see who the new player is! - The people that dislike rich teams have a very good reason, they use their economic resources to aggregate a superior talent pool, giving them an unfair off-field advantage. - Sports fans watch to be entertained, and one of the most significant elements in sports entertainment is the perception that a match is between evenly matched opponents. Me playing a game against Idra would be ludicrous, and while the first couple games would have hilarity value it would quickly get boring; because the outcome is predictable. - This effect is somewhat countered by the fact that some viewers will choose to associate with a "winning" team, and will gravitate towards teams with an unfair economic advantage and support them - but overall large differences in the resources available to teams detracts from the entertainment value of the sport as a whole. - It could be argued that this leads to an "underdog" dynamic where the dominant team (with the unfair advantage) wins most of the time but occasionally (the end of the Red Sox curse, for instance), an underdog causes an upset that increases the compelling nature of the sport. I would argue, however, that this fails to balance the loss of "potential" entertainment value caused by the boring dominance of an economically dominant team for decades (the Yankees). "Business is business" - The assumption that underlies this statement is that teams with an unfair advantage will act on their advantage. Ok, sure, but this is pretty self evident. What isn't as apparent is that the managerial structure of teams are caught in one of the classic catch -22's of capitalism - that is the short term decisions necessary to keep pace with competitors are deleterious to the overall industry/scene/whatever. In this case, using an overriding economic advantage to diminish the entertainment value of esports is a necessary but carcinogenic decision. The reason is complicated, but suffice to say that the job of team administrators is to sell audiences to advertisers and sponsors, and while obviously the long-term death of esports isn't in their best interest their decisions are framed by short term problems. Christ, how's it an unfair advantage, when they have got their money resources from success, if anything that would be a FAIR advantage. It's not like they cheated or got their money illegally. With ur logic I guess u support all small and unsuccessful teams because they have a "disadvantage" that they aren't successful. Let's say if liquid gets more successful and better, more sponsors and money etc you would call that an "unfair advantage" that they got more money than other not as successful teams and know you won't like em. you really don't make sense. I don't think you understand, "unfair" I'm using in the sense that they have a greater probability of victory than their opponent because of factors outside the game. It has nothing to do with the legality/illegality of this advantage at all, or any of the ethical ideas whatsoever. That said, some teams do have this kind of advantage, and regardless of whether it is the result of success or not it detracts from the future entertainment value of the sport (see my prior argument). "Let's say if liquid gets more successful and better, more sponsors and money etc you would call that an "unfair advantage" that they got more money than other not as successful teams and know you won't like em. you really don't make sense." Yes, that would be an unfair advantage from a technical point of view. All I'm doing is recognizing that sports don't occur in a vacuum, and that steps have to be taken to mitigate the outside influence on the game for it to be fun. Physical sports have not been very successful in this over the years.
Damn those enethical EG managers! Using their previous success as an e-sports team to buy good players! They should instead just give all that money to charity or to small teams who have no success, because clearly they deserve it! Really your argument here is just so petty. You're really hating on teams that have succeeded in the past and so they have money because of it.
|
On December 30 2011 02:34 ES.Genie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 02:12 Detrimentally wrote:
Do you not follow any sort of professional, collegiate or high school sports at all? I do follow football, but Im not a fan of any special team. If there is a chance that Ill see a good match, Ill definitely watch it, but I dont care if team A or team B wins. Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 02:12 Detrimentally wrote:
It is human nature to rally around something in any sort of competitive environment, and the obvious choice is to rally around a team that represents your region, school, etc. The obvious choise is to support the best team(s). Why would you support a team from your region it performes bad? Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 02:12 Detrimentally wrote:When we look at SC2, we have a scene that is growing rapidly and carrying eSports on its back. Whether you like it or not, SC is developing like other sports; people are rallying around teams and players. It is good for the scene. It creates a fan base, it makes players like IdrA and HuK worth what they are, and it brings in sponsors+viewers. It gives people a reason to watch, and THAT is how SC2 will become mainstream, not by having some forum troll saying "lolol why doez u support a team n hatez dur rival brah brah?" So whats your point? "We need to hate eachother, because otherwise eSports wont grow!" Seems legit. Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 02:12 Detrimentally wrote:It is really pretty basic on every level of understanding. So its basic on every level of understanding to hate something for no reason? Well acutally...its not. Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 02:12 Detrimentally wrote:Please, stop trying to come off as intelligent when you have no point to be made. Ahh come on. If you want to discuss, stop writing this kind of meaningless bs. It makes you look really really dumb and immature. EDIT: Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 02:26 GuiltyJerk wrote:
I'd be really surprised if ES.Genie doesn't feel any kind of national ties to TLO or HasuObs or Socke. No I really dont. I cheer for Hasu and Socke because they are really nice guys, good players and I like their attitude. Their nationality has nothing to do with that.
Its clear that you're either trolling or you are a part of the minority that feels no connection to a team of a similar region, school, etc. It is not hard to understand and you actually don't have a point. I'm not saying to hate on everyone that's not EG, or TL, or IM, etc. I'm saying that it is completely natural for someone to feel some sort of connection or attraction towards EG, and because EG and TL are perceived to be rival teams, they then develop a disliking towards the success of TL's players. In the same sense, its very easy to hope that a player you like goes to a team you like rather than a team you don't like.
You are simply looking for an argument about something that has no argument. It is the most basic of human natures to centralize around someone or something that people are capable of finding a connection with. Want proof? Look at the olympics, the world cup, football teams, baseball teams. Hell, look at how civilizations were formed; People came together and united, not necessarily because they needed to, but because they had a common goal. In this instance, people find a common region, common liking for a player, etc. rather than a common goal, but it is all linked back to the same exact instinct.
You lost whatever you want to call this. Don't waste your time rebutting because you have nothing logical to say, as proven by your previous posts.
|
On December 30 2011 03:12 Radin wrote:
Actually, if you read any beginner-level psychology textbook, you will learn that human beings tend to support what they "know." Therefore, it is natural. Perhaps it is because humans are afraid of what they "don't know." Either way, you are wrong.
I dont know Person X from Berlin, I dont know Person Y from New York and I dont know Person Z from Busan. I have no reason to like/dislike any of them. It doesnt matter if one of them has the same passport as I do, I still dont know him.
On December 30 2011 03:22 cLunAsTyY wrote:
Well I have a rational reason to like a team thats is from my town. If a winning team comes from my hometown everytime this winning team is mentioned I can say: ''Hey! Im from the same town as that team and I visited it a few times was really cool'' or something alike. A: this makes you feel good because you are somewhat related to a winning team. B: It makes great conversation. <- Rational reason for liking something from the same region.
You can also have that conversation without liking the team.
|
On December 30 2011 03:29 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:24 Almonjin wrote:On December 30 2011 03:19 skrotcyk wrote:On December 30 2011 03:02 Almonjin wrote:On December 30 2011 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 30 2011 01:05 masterbreti wrote:On December 30 2011 00:15 seiferoth10 wrote:On December 29 2011 23:52 masterbreti wrote:On December 29 2011 23:43 Ventor wrote:
All I know is if they recruit another Korean, when mouz loses to them again, everyone will bash EG because they have korean players. Which isn't right. TL has the same amount of Koreans and get revered for their victories. I guess it's the fact that most of the outspoken members of this community are European and want to see European champions. I think its more that just that. TL has never poached a player on another team before in sc2. EG has done it many times, though have been unsucessful in doing so except in the case of puma and HuK. TL's Koreans have been recruited usually though more than friendly means with both the former team and liquid. from what I understand. Nazgul was approached by TheWind to recruit Zenio. EG does have a bad reputation among the esports scene's. With many of their players having their fair share of haters, and people who dislike their business ethics. Do you know what poach means? You can't poach players. Players think for themselves. Players decide where they want to go. I know what it means. When EG offers you a six figure salary that is almost double what most teams can offer you. It becomes a lot more then thinking for themselves. HuK was rather pressured into the situaition. Being that he would be really well off in terms of money. If EG and TL were offering the same salary to HuK. It would no doubt have changed the outcome of the result of where HuK went. So people dislike EG because EG is using their resources to their fullest potential? That's hardly a good reason to dislike EG, in my opinion, but okay. If you don't like EG (or the Yankees or whatever token rich sports team you want to refer to) because they have money, fine. But EG did nothing illegal to obtain their acquisitions, which is the important part. Business is business. If you would like to obtain a player and have something better to offer them than their current team can offer, then it makes all the sense in the world to do just that so that they play for your team. You want to create a good team (whether that means winning things, being visible in the scene, having big personalities, whatever), and so you're going to play to win when it comes to acquiring ideal players. Obviously, the fans of the old team who lost their player to EG are going to be sour, but that's expected. Sucks for them, but it's not like EG did anything wrong. EDIT: Anyways, I'm ridiculously excited to see who the new player is! - The people that dislike rich teams have a very good reason, they use their economic resources to aggregate a superior talent pool, giving them an unfair off-field advantage. - Sports fans watch to be entertained, and one of the most significant elements in sports entertainment is the perception that a match is between evenly matched opponents. Me playing a game against Idra would be ludicrous, and while the first couple games would have hilarity value it would quickly get boring; because the outcome is predictable. - This effect is somewhat countered by the fact that some viewers will choose to associate with a "winning" team, and will gravitate towards teams with an unfair economic advantage and support them - but overall large differences in the resources available to teams detracts from the entertainment value of the sport as a whole. - It could be argued that this leads to an "underdog" dynamic where the dominant team (with the unfair advantage) wins most of the time but occasionally (the end of the Red Sox curse, for instance), an underdog causes an upset that increases the compelling nature of the sport. I would argue, however, that this fails to balance the loss of "potential" entertainment value caused by the boring dominance of an economically dominant team for decades (the Yankees). "Business is business" - The assumption that underlies this statement is that teams with an unfair advantage will act on their advantage. Ok, sure, but this is pretty self evident. What isn't as apparent is that the managerial structure of teams are caught in one of the classic catch -22's of capitalism - that is the short term decisions necessary to keep pace with competitors are deleterious to the overall industry/scene/whatever. In this case, using an overriding economic advantage to diminish the entertainment value of esports is a necessary but carcinogenic decision. The reason is complicated, but suffice to say that the job of team administrators is to sell audiences to advertisers and sponsors, and while obviously the long-term death of esports isn't in their best interest their decisions are framed by short term problems. Christ, how's it an unfair advantage, when they have got their money resources from success, if anything that would be a FAIR advantage. It's not like they cheated or got their money illegally. With ur logic I guess u support all small and unsuccessful teams because they have a "disadvantage" that they aren't successful. Let's say if liquid gets more successful and better, more sponsors and money etc you would call that an "unfair advantage" that they got more money than other not as successful teams and know you won't like em. you really don't make sense. I don't think you understand, "unfair" I'm using in the sense that they have a greater probability of victory than their opponent because of factors outside the game. It has nothing to do with the legality/illegality of this advantage at all, or any of the ethical ideas whatsoever. That said, some teams do have this kind of advantage, and regardless of whether it is the result of success or not it detracts from the future entertainment value of the sport (see my prior argument). "Let's say if liquid gets more successful and better, more sponsors and money etc you would call that an "unfair advantage" that they got more money than other not as successful teams and know you won't like em. you really don't make sense." Yes, that would be an unfair advantage from a technical point of view. All I'm doing is recognizing that sports don't occur in a vacuum, and that steps have to be taken to mitigate the outside influence on the game for it to be fun. Physical sports have not been very successful in this over the years. Damn those enethical EG managers! Using their previous success as an e-sports team to buy good players! They should instead just give all that money to charity or to small teams who have no success, because clearly they deserve it! Really your argument here is just so petty. You're really hating on teams that have succeeded in the past and so they have money because of it.
You should try reading my post before you make an irrelevant response. I specifically said I don't care about the ethics of it one way or the other because it doesn't matter. Your perception of who "deserves" to have an economic advantage doesn't matter either. The fact is, no matter who has an advantage it is bad for the game.
That sports teams are businesses, responsible for selling a product to other businesses, accounts for most of the difficulties in having real, rigorous competition in any sport. They are bound by the structure of the economy they participate in to a particular kind of behavior, which is unfortunately bad for fairness in sports.
|
On December 30 2011 01:30 ES.Genie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 01:06 Witten wrote:
You don't understand sports do you? Sports creates strong, powerful emotions in people. Emotions that can be seen as irrational by some, but completely normal by others. Nothing is greater than the thrill of watching your team make a comeback versus their most bitter rival. Nothing is more crushing than watching the opposite happen. When the Carolina Panthers lost the Super Bowl I was crushed, angry, and tragically disappointed. But the strong emotions of happiness and hope and pride I felt previous to that on my team's Super Bowl run were worth all the negative feelings I received in the end.
It's the magic of sports. Feel the magic. You'll like it. What are you even talking about? Have you ever read the comments under a Barca vs Real(or even Schalke vs Dortmund) video on YouTube? Have you never seen fans of different clubs beating the shit out of eachother? If thats your understanding of sports...well I really dont want competitive Starcraft to be seen as sport.
Really? Youtube is your argument? Have you ever been to a sporting event? Watched one on TV? Seen the Olympics? Hey, sometimes assholes get violent over sports! And hey, most of the time, they totally don't. You have an incredibly close minded view of sports and rivalries in general, as well as a twisted view of who to root for. Later in this thread you say "Why would you root for someone who loses? Why wouldn't you root for the best"(paraphrased). If you had children, would you root for your son or daughters opponent because their team is better? No, you would root for your child because you have a connection with them, just like many feel a connection with their nation.
Is that actually hard for you to understand? I root for Leenock because he was the player who first gave me goosebumps. His series vs. Nada and Clide made me a spectator of SC2. Leenock is the reason I watch all the streams I do, and play as often as I do. If I had never discovered those games, SC2 may have just become another game to me. The same is true with Neo G. Soulkey with BW. I dislike By. Snow because he is rivals with Soulkey (and dislike Leta a tad as well for similar reasons). If this is "irrational" in your view of the world, so be it.
I'll keep rooting for the players who bring me enjoyment. I'll root for the country that has housed me for 22 years. I'll dislike Puma because he used to 1/1/1 a lot and I don't enjoy that play style. I'll enjoy Starcraft 2.
Keep doing whatever it is your doing.
|
On December 30 2011 00:31 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 23:40 Sphen5117 wrote:On December 29 2011 23:32 integrity wrote:
well personally i like eg current roster a well balance of high caliber players(idra,huk,puma) mid teir (demuslim,machine,incontrol) and up incomers (axslav, strifeco, LZgamer)
i hope that they don't throw away their up incomers division to go around buying high caliber players. it would be one less opportunity for the NA up incomers Be careful saying that here. A couple pages back, an incredibly informed, polite, reasonable, and intelligent individual said it's only worth it to teams like EG to buy Tournament-dominating players. Basically saying that the best move for an ESPORTS team is to adopt a philosophy that stifles ESPORTS. Huurrr.. big teams are businesses. eg, and other high tier teams, cant pay bad players significant money while continuing to put out the salaries necessary to attract good players.
How does Incontrol make a living then?
|
On December 30 2011 03:41 ELYSiUMlol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 00:31 IdrA wrote:On December 29 2011 23:40 Sphen5117 wrote:On December 29 2011 23:32 integrity wrote:
well personally i like eg current roster a well balance of high caliber players(idra,huk,puma) mid teir (demuslim,machine,incontrol) and up incomers (axslav, strifeco, LZgamer)
i hope that they don't throw away their up incomers division to go around buying high caliber players. it would be one less opportunity for the NA up incomers Be careful saying that here. A couple pages back, an incredibly informed, polite, reasonable, and intelligent individual said it's only worth it to teams like EG to buy Tournament-dominating players. Basically saying that the best move for an ESPORTS team is to adopt a philosophy that stifles ESPORTS. Huurrr.. big teams are businesses. eg, and other high tier teams, cant pay bad players significant money while continuing to put out the salaries necessary to attract good players. How does Incontrol make a living then?
I could fully answer that, as probably everybody else, but I save myself the time and just say: You already know that answer, don't be stupid.
And when you really don't know, watch ITG from 1-2 months ago
|
On December 30 2011 03:31 Detrimentally wrote:
You lost whatever you want to call this. Don't waste your time rebutting because you have nothing logical to say, as proven by your previous posts.
If have nothing logical to say? Ok, now its getting absurd. So you think liking a team for no reason is perfectly logical, but not feeling any kind of realtion to someone, just because hes from the same country, is absolutely dumb and unreasonable? Lets not twist reality.
Btw. a discussion is not about winning or losing. Its about exchanging opionions with other people and to come out a little bit wiser. I dont know if this is part of American mentality and I honestly dont care, but you should really think about your attitude.
On December 30 2011 03:34 Witten wrote:
If you had children, would you root for your son or daughters opponent because their team is better? No, you would root for your child because you have a connection with them, just like many feel a connection with their nation.
Of course I will root for my child, but thats because there is a real absolutely rational connection. You just dont have any kind of connection to someone because of his nationality. Thats the point and if you dont get that, I feel really sorry for you.
|
On December 29 2011 14:36 Dissonance23 wrote:IdrA doesn't like viOlet so I doubt it.
IdrA doesn't (didn't) like HuK either...
|
tbh, there needs to be a good balance between recruiting talents and popular players.
gatored for example, has beaten numerous code S players in LAN like DRG, ganzi, and top. this is the sort of player that has a chance of becoming a star.
i'd rather see the best foreign teams send him to international lans then "popular" players who have failed constantly (you know who i'm talking about), and have literally no chance of even passing the group stages.
|
On December 30 2011 03:33 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:29 hunts wrote:On December 30 2011 03:24 Almonjin wrote:On December 30 2011 03:19 skrotcyk wrote:On December 30 2011 03:02 Almonjin wrote:On December 30 2011 01:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 30 2011 01:05 masterbreti wrote:On December 30 2011 00:15 seiferoth10 wrote:On December 29 2011 23:52 masterbreti wrote:On December 29 2011 23:43 Ventor wrote:
All I know is if they recruit another Korean, when mouz loses to them again, everyone will bash EG because they have korean players. Which isn't right. TL has the same amount of Koreans and get revered for their victories. I guess it's the fact that most of the outspoken members of this community are European and want to see European champions. I think its more that just that. TL has never poached a player on another team before in sc2. EG has done it many times, though have been unsucessful in doing so except in the case of puma and HuK. TL's Koreans have been recruited usually though more than friendly means with both the former team and liquid. from what I understand. Nazgul was approached by TheWind to recruit Zenio. EG does have a bad reputation among the esports scene's. With many of their players having their fair share of haters, and people who dislike their business ethics. Do you know what poach means? You can't poach players. Players think for themselves. Players decide where they want to go. I know what it means. When EG offers you a six figure salary that is almost double what most teams can offer you. It becomes a lot more then thinking for themselves. HuK was rather pressured into the situaition. Being that he would be really well off in terms of money. If EG and TL were offering the same salary to HuK. It would no doubt have changed the outcome of the result of where HuK went. So people dislike EG because EG is using their resources to their fullest potential? That's hardly a good reason to dislike EG, in my opinion, but okay. If you don't like EG (or the Yankees or whatever token rich sports team you want to refer to) because they have money, fine. But EG did nothing illegal to obtain their acquisitions, which is the important part. Business is business. If you would like to obtain a player and have something better to offer them than their current team can offer, then it makes all the sense in the world to do just that so that they play for your team. You want to create a good team (whether that means winning things, being visible in the scene, having big personalities, whatever), and so you're going to play to win when it comes to acquiring ideal players. Obviously, the fans of the old team who lost their player to EG are going to be sour, but that's expected. Sucks for them, but it's not like EG did anything wrong. EDIT: Anyways, I'm ridiculously excited to see who the new player is! - The people that dislike rich teams have a very good reason, they use their economic resources to aggregate a superior talent pool, giving them an unfair off-field advantage. - Sports fans watch to be entertained, and one of the most significant elements in sports entertainment is the perception that a match is between evenly matched opponents. Me playing a game against Idra would be ludicrous, and while the first couple games would have hilarity value it would quickly get boring; because the outcome is predictable. - This effect is somewhat countered by the fact that some viewers will choose to associate with a "winning" team, and will gravitate towards teams with an unfair economic advantage and support them - but overall large differences in the resources available to teams detracts from the entertainment value of the sport as a whole. - It could be argued that this leads to an "underdog" dynamic where the dominant team (with the unfair advantage) wins most of the time but occasionally (the end of the Red Sox curse, for instance), an underdog causes an upset that increases the compelling nature of the sport. I would argue, however, that this fails to balance the loss of "potential" entertainment value caused by the boring dominance of an economically dominant team for decades (the Yankees). "Business is business" - The assumption that underlies this statement is that teams with an unfair advantage will act on their advantage. Ok, sure, but this is pretty self evident. What isn't as apparent is that the managerial structure of teams are caught in one of the classic catch -22's of capitalism - that is the short term decisions necessary to keep pace with competitors are deleterious to the overall industry/scene/whatever. In this case, using an overriding economic advantage to diminish the entertainment value of esports is a necessary but carcinogenic decision. The reason is complicated, but suffice to say that the job of team administrators is to sell audiences to advertisers and sponsors, and while obviously the long-term death of esports isn't in their best interest their decisions are framed by short term problems. Christ, how's it an unfair advantage, when they have got their money resources from success, if anything that would be a FAIR advantage. It's not like they cheated or got their money illegally. With ur logic I guess u support all small and unsuccessful teams because they have a "disadvantage" that they aren't successful. Let's say if liquid gets more successful and better, more sponsors and money etc you would call that an "unfair advantage" that they got more money than other not as successful teams and know you won't like em. you really don't make sense. I don't think you understand, "unfair" I'm using in the sense that they have a greater probability of victory than their opponent because of factors outside the game. It has nothing to do with the legality/illegality of this advantage at all, or any of the ethical ideas whatsoever. That said, some teams do have this kind of advantage, and regardless of whether it is the result of success or not it detracts from the future entertainment value of the sport (see my prior argument). "Let's say if liquid gets more successful and better, more sponsors and money etc you would call that an "unfair advantage" that they got more money than other not as successful teams and know you won't like em. you really don't make sense." Yes, that would be an unfair advantage from a technical point of view. All I'm doing is recognizing that sports don't occur in a vacuum, and that steps have to be taken to mitigate the outside influence on the game for it to be fun. Physical sports have not been very successful in this over the years. Damn those enethical EG managers! Using their previous success as an e-sports team to buy good players! They should instead just give all that money to charity or to small teams who have no success, because clearly they deserve it! Really your argument here is just so petty. You're really hating on teams that have succeeded in the past and so they have money because of it. You should try reading my post before you make an irrelevant response. I specifically said I don't care about the ethics of it one way or the other because it doesn't matter. Your perception of who "deserves" to have an economic advantage doesn't matter either. The fact is, no matter who has an advantage it is bad for the game. That sports teams are businesses, responsible for selling a product to other businesses, accounts for most of the difficulties in having real, rigorous competition in any sport. They are bound by the structure of the economy they participate in to a particular kind of behavior, which is unfortunately bad for fairness in sports.
I understand your logic but I don't agree with it. Don't you think players would still want to be with the best team (I'm assuming we're in a world where teams don't have to abide by economic rules)? Don't you think over time, as a team is more successful, it will have better players because they are more attracted to it, resulting in the same "unfair" advantage you describe?
Furthermore, I think the best storyline in sports is when a team with 1/10 the money of the opposing team wins. Don't you?
|
On December 30 2011 03:44 ES.Genie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:31 Detrimentally wrote:
You lost whatever you want to call this. Don't waste your time rebutting because you have nothing logical to say, as proven by your previous posts. If have nothing logical to say? Ok, now its getting absurd. So you think liking a team for no reason is perfectly logical, but not feeling any kind of realtion to someone, just because hes from the same country, is absolutely dumb and unreasonable? Lets not twist reality. Btw. a discussion is not about winning or losing. Its about exchanging opionions with other people and to come out a little bit wiser. I dont know if this is part of American mentality and I honestly dont care, but you should really think about your attitude.
Did you even read what I said? I already answered your question in multiple posts. It is human nature. As simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less.
and this isn't a discussion. This is me correcting someone who is flat out wrong.
|
On December 30 2011 03:44 ES.Genie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:31 Detrimentally wrote:
You lost whatever you want to call this. Don't waste your time rebutting because you have nothing logical to say, as proven by your previous posts. If have nothing logical to say? Ok, now its getting absurd. So you think liking a team for no reason is perfectly logical, but not feeling any kind of realtion to someone, just because hes from the same country, is absolutely dumb and unreasonable? Lets not twist reality. Btw. a discussion is not about winning or losing. Its about exchanging opionions with other people and to come out a little bit wiser. I dont know if this is part of American mentality and I honestly dont care, but you should really think about your attitude. Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:34 Witten wrote:
If you had children, would you root for your son or daughters opponent because their team is better? No, you would root for your child because you have a connection with them, just like many feel a connection with their nation. Of course I will root for my child, but thats because there is a real absolutely rational connection. You just dont have any kind of connection to someone because of his nationality. Thats the point and if you dont get that, I feel really sorry for you.
How is your country/town/college not a rational connection?!? How is liking your country's team not a reason? Your logic fails. You're just ignoring the points people make, you keep rehashing "being from the same country is not a rational reason", yes, it is.
|
On December 30 2011 03:49 Detrimentally wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:44 ES.Genie wrote:On December 30 2011 03:31 Detrimentally wrote:
You lost whatever you want to call this. Don't waste your time rebutting because you have nothing logical to say, as proven by your previous posts. If have nothing logical to say? Ok, now its getting absurd. So you think liking a team for no reason is perfectly logical, but not feeling any kind of realtion to someone, just because hes from the same country, is absolutely dumb and unreasonable? Lets not twist reality. Btw. a discussion is not about winning or losing. Its about exchanging opionions with other people and to come out a little bit wiser. I dont know if this is part of American mentality and I honestly dont care, but you should really think about your attitude. Did you even read what I said? I already answered your question in multiple posts. It is human nature. As simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less. and this isn't a discussion. This is me correcting someone who is flat out wrong.
His point is that human nature isn't always logical. But if you're always logical then enjoy your boring-ass life as a robot =P
|
On December 30 2011 03:49 Detrimentally wrote:
It is human nature.
No its not. Eating is natural, feeling come kind of magical connection to someone is really not natural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
