EPT[D] Why the future of Pro-SC2 should be Tennis - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Flamingo777
United States1190 Posts
| ||
|
eonDE
Canada371 Posts
| ||
|
Ra.Xor.2
United States1784 Posts
| ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
| ||
|
aFganFlyTrap
Australia212 Posts
| ||
|
Arco
United States2090 Posts
I do agree we should focus on the individual more, but team leagues are an awesome part of Starcraft eSports too. I think it's still possible to have both, with some improvements. | ||
|
cmen15
United States1519 Posts
| ||
|
Akta
447 Posts
edit For those that never heard of the ATP rankings: ATP Rankings, wikipedia | ||
|
howLiN
Portugal1676 Posts
On April 10 2012 09:36 Daniel C wrote: Interesting, well written post. Poster above: in F1, its not 1v1, right? No but the team-player dynamic is pretty similar to SC2 I think. | ||
|
winthrop
Hong Kong956 Posts
teamleague just not that fun | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
| ||
|
Vendemmia
Italy198 Posts
tennis it's the best model for starcraft development! | ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
Also, your suggestion of getting rid of teams is ridiculous, for so many reasons Quite apart from the fact that team leagues are hugely entertaining to watch, and often can produce the best storylines. And as Gosuuser said, the game isn't large enough to sustain individual players, teams mean that players who haven't found success yet can still find practice partners, in korea a training house, the ability to fly to maybe 1 or 2 events etc. They get a chance to breakout. Also, team sponsorship makes so much more sense than player sponsorship. Should I sponsor Idra? OR, HuK, Idra, JYP, Puma, DeMuslim, iNcontrol, Machine, LZ? It's a nobrainer. With small exceptions, no player is big enough to sustain his own brand, unless you are a god in a previous game (Grubby) or combine winning loads with awesome showmanship (MC), you need to have multiple people together to attract sponsors. | ||
|
kyllinghest
Norway1607 Posts
| ||
|
Xiron
Germany1233 Posts
On April 10 2012 19:43 Hider wrote: Not a well throught out idea. In tennis every top player has the sponsor money to fly out to a shitton of tournaments. In sc2 there are a lot of top players who can't afford that. Hence we need qualifications/subjective seedings. Internet. and, oh btw, by every top player you mean like the top 30 of the world? yeah, you're right. Or do you mean everyone in the top 50 or top 100? Nope. | ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
less regulars less money less sponsors and all you have is the problem again but in 50 years everyone will understand esport because they are born with it  so just wait and you can nerd while enyoing your pension xD and no one will watch tennis anymore .) | ||
|
Gajarell
Germany29 Posts
| ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
On April 10 2012 19:53 Gajarell wrote: Chess fits better. but chess isnt that main style that tennis have, i dont see that much chess in tv, also alot chess gamers switched to poker, also chess gamers count as nerds to xD | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On April 10 2012 19:48 MCDayC wrote: No. It's nice not having the best player in the world completely quantified. It brings debate, if there was just a numerical ranking, that would be dull. Also, your suggestion of getting rid of teams is ridiculous, for so many reasons Quite apart from the fact that team leagues are hugely entertaining to watch, and often can produce the best storylines. And as Gosuuser said, the game isn't large enough to sustain individual players, teams mean that players who haven't found success yet can still find practice partners, in korea a training house, the ability to fly to maybe 1 or 2 events etc. They get a chance to breakout. Also, team sponsorship makes so much more sense than player sponsorship. Should I sponsor Idra? OR, HuK, Idra, JYP, Puma, DeMuslim, iNcontrol, Machine, LZ? It's a nobrainer. With small exceptions, no player is big enough to sustain his own brand, unless you are a god in a previous game (Grubby) or combine winning loads with awesome showmanship (MC), you need to have multiple people together to attract sponsors. The ATP rankings don't determine who the best player is, the ranking determines who performed the best over the last year and seeds people according to that performance. It says nothing about who should beat who. I find teamleagues in SC2 incredibly uninteresting, don't have a team I root for, and think that in general team leagues have too many matches in them that I don't care about. I'd be fine with getting rid of them (the teamleagues). The actual teams can stay, but should function as facilitators, not as some 'uniting' feature. SC2 is 1v1 and I don't want to see team nike vs team adidas in tennis either. | ||
|
Xiron
Germany1233 Posts
On April 10 2012 19:53 CoR wrote: great reading, but to compare it, tennis is god damn boring and sc2 is complex, that have positives and negatives as starcraft is so much harder to understand for regulars xD less regulars less money less sponsors and all you have is the problem again but in 50 years everyone will understand esport because they are born with it so just wait and you can nerd while enyoing your pension xD and no one will watch tennis anymore .)Lol. 'tennis is god damn boring and sc2 is complex' There is a true master in both of them here, and he obviously got the credibility to claim tennis to be boring and sc2 to be complex. SC2, in my opinion, is just as easy to understand as tennis. Performing well in tennis is much much harder than performing well in SC2. Which agrees with your argument that in 50 years people will be generally way more lazy and will prefer sitting in front of a computer to actually doing something. | ||
| ||
