|
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.
You're telling everyone that they don't understand your argument, have you thought that the issue is maybe not everyone else? Like I get what you're trying to say, but it's so silly I'm having a hard time accepting that you're actually complaining about it. You basically want every team to pay their players the same and not recruit new players? That's not how things will or should work buddy. You want to take economy out of esports, that's just silly and it wouldn't work.
|
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.
Thank you for responding to one sentence of my three paragraphs. I had a lot of points I made, but thank you for criticizing only one. I still fail to see your point that nationality can't be a logical connection between peoples. I see the point you're attempting to make, but I don't see where you're giving any real data or reasoning besides "You don't have a connection with someone you don't know". I guess a way to make my question more difficult is if your step-child was playing. You don't actually have a blood connection with this child. Just because it's the child of someone you married doesn't mean you have any real connection.
I mean, that's the argument you've been making this whole time. You're battling semantics with false logic and reasoning that completely ignores that people have emotions and irrational feelings. Which is natural. "Just because millions of people do it doesn't mean it is natural."
It kinda does.
|
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.
Guys, these things are very important to you. But as someone trying to reasonably assess your arguments, I, as well as all other readers, would appreciate it if you would take a little bit off the anger.
I think your argument is an age old one, that has a lot of different rationalities for how to draw one's loyalties or assess fairness and equality.
Cheers.
|
On December 30 2011 03:55 ES.Genie wrote:No its not. Eating is natural, feeling come kind of magical connection to someone is really not natural.
You're right. Relationships are not natural. When people have babies, they simply toss them aside and hope they can fend for themselves. People don't get married and spend their lives together. People certainly don't keep in contact with their family, either. Connections just don't happen ever and it completely unnatural.
|
On December 30 2011 03:55 ES.Genie wrote:No its not. Eating is natural, feeling come kind of magical connection to someone is really not natural.
Why do you think early humans went to war with another tribe? Why do you think countries still fight wars these days? If France attacked Germany today, would you just be like "Oh, I don't care, I don't have a connection to this country"?
Dude.. It's where you were born, it's where you grew up, it's where your house is, it's the language you speak, it's the food you eat. Get over yourself, it's not because you dislike your country and feel no connection to it that everyone that does is illogical. In fact, it's illogical to feel no connection to your hometown or country..
|
On December 30 2011 03:48 flick.ch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:33 Almonjin wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
Hey there,
You can argue that some kind of "prestige" dynamic could become dominant when the economics are taken out of the equation. I admit to a certain extent there is already a prestige factor, but I think its safe to say that economics definitely trumps this by a big degree right now.
I think the "prestige" dynamic would apply to different sports in different ways as well. In team sports like baseball it would probably be strongest, but in individual sports like Sc2 being the most skilled player on an otherwise mediocre team has prestige advantages as well.
Overall I would say, I generally agree, but that is a problem for the future.
As for the "underdog" dynamic, I addressed that in an earlier post by using the Yankees/Sox as an example. It does make for some really compelling moments, but the problem is that those are just that - moments. It's less obvious that baseball wasn't as entertaining as it could have been had the Yankees and the Sox had a balanced rivalry for the preceding decades, because lost potential is less noticeable than shakeups. This dynamic does have the potential to create some real drama, but the cost tends to get emphasized less.
|
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.
Doesn't mouz beat EG in team leagues already? It wouldn't really be mouz losing "again."
|
i HOPE its hongUn prime. they need more aggressive players.
|
On December 30 2011 03:59 flick.ch wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:55 ES.Genie wrote: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. Why do you think early humans went to war with another tribe? Why do you think countries still fight wars these days? If France attacked Germany today, would you just be like "Oh, I don't care, I don't have a connection to this country"? Dude.. It's where you were born, it's where you grew up, it's where your house is, it's the language you speak, it's the food you eat. Get over yourself, it's not because you dislike your country and feel no connection to it that everyone that does is illogical. In fact, it's illogical to feel no connection to your hometown or country..
Well said, the last paragraph could be a heroic speech about patriotism from a movie.
(On a side note) I really hope the new player is naniwa.
|
Moon. Make it happen, EG.
|
On December 30 2011 01:05 masterbreti wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I didn't think EG could afford six figure player salaries. Please correct me if I'm just that naive.
I mean we're not talking about Flash here. We're talking about unstable (competitively) players playing an unstable game.
|
On December 30 2011 03:50 flick.ch wrote:
How is your country/town/college not a rational connection?!?
How is it a rational connection? How can you give a f*ck about someones nationality? You are trying to make prejudices(related to nationality) sound perfectly reasonable. Its not. Neither in positive ways nor in negative. There is no reason to like someone you dont know based on his nationality. Your can like someone because hes a nice person, because you think his playstyle is good or even because you think hes cute, but you cannot like him just due to the place he lives/was born. Thats not reasonable, not natural and not logical. It is simply dumb and kinda sad.
On December 30 2011 03:57 Detrimentally wrote:
You're right. Relationships are not natural. When people have babies, they simply toss them aside and hope they can fend for themselves. People don't get married and spend their lives together. People certainly don't keep in contact with their family, either. Connections just don't happen ever and it completely unnatural.
I never said that and you know it. Just to quote myself:
On December 30 2011 03:44 ES.Genie wrote:
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.
If you have a real relationship and connection to someone(e.g. your child) it is perfectly fine to support and cheer for that person. Having the same passport is not some kind of relationship. Demuslim and I have the same haircolour. Do we have a relationship because of that? No we dont.
|
On December 30 2011 03:55 ES.Genie wrote:No its not. Eating is natural, feeling come kind of magical connection to someone is really not natural.
But feeling some kind of magical connection to your child is natural?
Are you Spock? Seriously, all emotion to you is irrational, apparently. You claim as though it is too illogical for you to understand, but I feel as though the level of connection is too difficult for you to comprehend, therefore you don't attempt to and sit back and scoff, "Anyone who feels that is very irrational." You seem to be the only person here supporting that argument.
|
On December 30 2011 04:08 ES.Genie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:50 flick.ch wrote:
How is your country/town/college not a rational connection?!? How is it a rational connection? How can you give a f*ck about someones nationality? You are trying to make prejudices(related to nationality) sound perfectly reasonable. Its not. Neither in positive ways nor in negative. There is no reason to like someone you dont know based on his nationality. Your can like someone because hes a nice person, because you think his playstyle is good or even because you think hes cute, but you cannot like him just due to the place he lives/was born. Thats not reasonable, not natural and not logical. It is simply dumb and kinda sad. Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:57 Detrimentally wrote:
You're right. Relationships are not natural. When people have babies, they simply toss them aside and hope they can fend for themselves. People don't get married and spend their lives together. People certainly don't keep in contact with their family, either. Connections just don't happen ever and it completely unnatural. I never said that and you know it. Just to quote myself: Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:44 ES.Genie wrote:
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. If you have a real relationship and connection to someone(e.g. your child) it is perfectly fine to support and cheer for that person. Having the same passport is not some kind of relationship.
You just said "feeling come kind of magical connection to someone is really not natural."
It is natural. I've given you countless pieces of evidence. You're either dumb or a troll. cy@
|
On December 30 2011 04:02 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:48 flick.ch wrote:On December 30 2011 03:33 Almonjin wrote: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:
[quote]
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? Hey there, You can argue that some kind of "prestige" dynamic could become dominant when the economics are taken out of the equation. I admit to a certain extent there is already a prestige factor, but I think its safe to say that economics definitely trumps this by a big degree right now. I think the "prestige" dynamic would apply to different sports in different ways as well. In team sports like baseball it would probably be strongest, but in individual sports like Sc2 being the most skilled player on an otherwise mediocre team has prestige advantages as well. Overall I would say, I generally agree, but that is a problem for the future. As for the "underdog" dynamic, I addressed that in an earlier post by using the Yankees/Sox as an example. It does make for some really compelling moments, but the problem is that those are just that - moments. It's less obvious that baseball wasn't as entertaining as it could have been had the Yankees and the Sox had a balanced rivalry for the preceding decades, because lost potential is less noticeable than shakeups. This dynamic does have the potential to create some real drama, but the cost tends to get emphasized less.
True. I have to admit it's more competitive when it's an even playing field. I think, for the most part, people are starting to form allegiances with SC2 teams (I don't really, I see this mostly as a 1v1 sport, I care about the player, not the team necessarily). But I think it's absolutely necessary for a team to be better than the other, have more resources etc.. because otherwise there is no incentive for other teams to become better, to become more competitive. If every team is equally matched, it'll become very stale very quickly.
|
|
|
On December 30 2011 04:08 ES.Genie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:50 flick.ch wrote:
How is your country/town/college not a rational connection?!? How is it a rational connection? How can you give a f*ck about someones nationality? You are trying to make prejudices(related to nationality) sound perfectly reasonable. Its not. Neither in positive ways nor in negative. There is no reason to like someone you dont know based on his nationality. Your can like someone because hes a nice person, because you think his playstyle is good or even because you think hes cute, but you cannot like him just due to the place he lives/was born. Thats not reasonable, not natural and not logical. It is simply dumb and kinda sad. Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:57 Detrimentally wrote:
You're right. Relationships are not natural. When people have babies, they simply toss them aside and hope they can fend for themselves. People don't get married and spend their lives together. People certainly don't keep in contact with their family, either. Connections just don't happen ever and it completely unnatural. I never said that and you know it. Just to quote myself: Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 03:44 ES.Genie wrote:
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. If you have a real relationship and connection to someone(e.g. your child) it is perfectly fine to support and cheer for that person. Having the same passport is not some kind of relationship. Demuslim and I have the same haircolour. Do we have a relationship because of that? No we dont.
How are the feelings of love any more rational and natural than pride? Answer that with a real answer, not a cheap snide one that you've been spewing for 5+ pages.
|
On December 30 2011 04:09 Detrimentally wrote:
You just said "feeling come kind of magical connection to someone is really not natural."
No I dont. I said its not natural to feel some kind of magical connection to someone, because you have the same nationality.
|
On December 30 2011 04:11 ES.Genie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 04:09 Detrimentally wrote:
You just said "feeling come kind of magical connection to someone is really not natural." No I dont. I said its not natural to feel some kind of magical connection to someone, because you have the same nationality.
No. No you didn't. Now you did, because you realize you were wrong before. But you really did say what Detrimentally said you said.
|
On December 30 2011 03:55 ES.Genie wrote:No its not. Eating is natural, feeling come kind of magical connection to someone is really not natural.
Idk why in the first place we're assuming that being from the same area and feeling a connection to someone is illogical. There is a connection.
I AM FROM THE US
IDRA IS FROM THE US
I have more of a connection to idrA than someone not from the US.
A massive part of human conversation and interaction is finding ideas that are alike between 2 or more people, IdrA and I's connection is that we are both from the US, and I will root for him over someone not from the US every time, because we do have a connection, however small you consider it a finite, and LOGICAL connection. It is human nature, and not magical, it is purely logical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
