|
On August 27 2012 06:23 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:21 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:17 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:15 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:14 BlazeFury01 wrote:
Personally, I believe that Kespa having tight management of their players is a good thing. We all saw what happened at WCS: MC, MVP, & Hero dropping out of the tournament to play in another tournament. It my opinion, that looked very unprofessional, considering the fact that those 3 spots should have been given to 3 other players who really wanted to participate. Actually, Hero's situation was discussed between Team Liquid and GOM prior to the start of the tournament. Both sides agreed that it's better for Hero to participate then drop. Indeed, but just the fact that the option was available is pretty retarded. I disagree on that. It's better for the teams and individual sponsors have more freedom of what tournaments to back, so sponsors will compete with each other. Sponsers will compete with each other regardless. Anytime rival teams players play each other, sponsers are competing. So, saying a player should be able to drop out tournament A to join tournament B so "sponsors will compete with each other" is plain ridiculous. Oh, I meant to say tournament. Anyways, sponsors aren't really competing against each other in KeSPA.
Are you serious?
|
On August 27 2012 06:22 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:20 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:05 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 05:50 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 05:47 Sandermatt wrote:On August 27 2012 05:40 Salazarz wrote:
Btw, using the logic of eSF fanboys (sorry, I can't think of any other way to call it), eSF players are now being forced to go against their wishes with their boycott - after all, they have said multiple times in the past that playing in OSL and playing against KeSPA players in general is something they really look forward to doing, and want to do. But when eSF decides to boycott OSL despite players saying they want to play in it prior to these events, it's the players themselves deciding what's best for them in the long run. When the KeSPA players said they'd like to compete in GSL when possible and then KeSPA pulls out of GSL4, it's KeSPA forcing players to do shit they don't want to. Hmm!
Because Kespa represents the players employers and not the players. Kespa will ban the players if they join a tournament they do not agree. eSF has no sanction tool. And eSF have been fine in joining any other tournament than GSL. eSF is also fine with playing in OSL and Kespa playing in GSL. Something KeSPA cannot say. I'm pretty sure Coca, Byun, and Naniwa (to name a few) might disagree with you whether eSF / Gom have a 'sanction tool' or not. The thing about KeSPA 'refusing to play in GSL flat out' is bullshit. All they did was they won't play in season 4 - there is no real reason to read further into that. First of all, ESF and GOM are separate entities. Second of all, the players you listed were either "sanctioned" by their team, or by GOM. ESF had nothing to do with either. Also, stop comparing ESF to KeSPA as they are different kinds of representative bodies. One represents players, the other represents sponsors. Pretty EZ to understand. Apparently you need to read further into the consequences of 'not playing in season 4.' Yeah, just like OGN and KeSPA are separate entities. As for your second 'point', it doesn't really change anything. The point is players do what they are told by the people in charge; sure you could argue that eSF is managed by people who are closer to e-sports etcetc, but the fact remains that players do what they are told, just like under KeSPA. The different between the two organizations isn't nearly as big as you seem to believe - eSF is pretty much a baby KeSPA. I never argued OGN and KeSPA weren't separate, and I sympathize with OGN that they're the one losing in all of this. But I hold KeSPA responsible for it. ESF isn't remotely as powerful as KeSPA when it comes to how they can discipline their players. ESF doesn't hold the priorities of the sponsors above the players. ESF doesn't hold the licenses of their players which they can take away for disobeying a ban and completely pull the rug from their competitive career. ESF can't really force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass. Theres a huge difference. What makes you think eSF doesn't hold priorities of the sponsors above the players? In fact, the most recent events at WCS prove the opposite. KeSPA can't force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass, too - what makes you think otherwise?
Wrong. As former KeSPA players they would need a progaming license to play in KeSPA events. If they leave they lose their license, and they never get to play in KeSPA events again (OS2L, this "big project", SC2 Proleague).
Whereas players who leave eSF teams can still play in GSL and GSTL (Provided they move to a team that is in the GSTL or partnered with one which is).
|
On August 27 2012 06:26 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:23 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:21 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:17 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:15 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:14 BlazeFury01 wrote:
Personally, I believe that Kespa having tight management of their players is a good thing. We all saw what happened at WCS: MC, MVP, & Hero dropping out of the tournament to play in another tournament. It my opinion, that looked very unprofessional, considering the fact that those 3 spots should have been given to 3 other players who really wanted to participate. Actually, Hero's situation was discussed between Team Liquid and GOM prior to the start of the tournament. Both sides agreed that it's better for Hero to participate then drop. Indeed, but just the fact that the option was available is pretty retarded. I disagree on that. It's better for the teams and individual sponsors have more freedom of what tournaments to back, so sponsors will compete with each other. Sponsers will compete with each other regardless. Anytime rival teams players play each other, sponsers are competing. So, saying a player should be able to drop out tournament A to join tournament B so "sponsors will compete with each other" is plain ridiculous. Oh, I meant to say tournament. Anyways, sponsors aren't really competing against each other in KeSPA. Are you serious?
Yes. Let's imagine if LG-IM was in KeSPA, and they wanted to send people off to IEM instead. Samsung might well have blocked them from doing so. Sponsors/teams can't individually act to attempt get maximum exposure.
|
On August 27 2012 06:23 BgSBendeR wrote:
the GSL format is really bad. Remove code A and I have no doubt that KeSPA will allow their players to participate.
The whole Code A for 1 season then you get to play in Code S is fucking retarded.
So that's why you're so against esf's decision. I totally understand now.
|
On August 27 2012 06:27 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:22 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:20 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:05 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 05:50 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 05:47 Sandermatt wrote:On August 27 2012 05:40 Salazarz wrote:
Btw, using the logic of eSF fanboys (sorry, I can't think of any other way to call it), eSF players are now being forced to go against their wishes with their boycott - after all, they have said multiple times in the past that playing in OSL and playing against KeSPA players in general is something they really look forward to doing, and want to do. But when eSF decides to boycott OSL despite players saying they want to play in it prior to these events, it's the players themselves deciding what's best for them in the long run. When the KeSPA players said they'd like to compete in GSL when possible and then KeSPA pulls out of GSL4, it's KeSPA forcing players to do shit they don't want to. Hmm!
Because Kespa represents the players employers and not the players. Kespa will ban the players if they join a tournament they do not agree. eSF has no sanction tool. And eSF have been fine in joining any other tournament than GSL. eSF is also fine with playing in OSL and Kespa playing in GSL. Something KeSPA cannot say. I'm pretty sure Coca, Byun, and Naniwa (to name a few) might disagree with you whether eSF / Gom have a 'sanction tool' or not. The thing about KeSPA 'refusing to play in GSL flat out' is bullshit. All they did was they won't play in season 4 - there is no real reason to read further into that. First of all, ESF and GOM are separate entities. Second of all, the players you listed were either "sanctioned" by their team, or by GOM. ESF had nothing to do with either. Also, stop comparing ESF to KeSPA as they are different kinds of representative bodies. One represents players, the other represents sponsors. Pretty EZ to understand. Apparently you need to read further into the consequences of 'not playing in season 4.' Yeah, just like OGN and KeSPA are separate entities. As for your second 'point', it doesn't really change anything. The point is players do what they are told by the people in charge; sure you could argue that eSF is managed by people who are closer to e-sports etcetc, but the fact remains that players do what they are told, just like under KeSPA. The different between the two organizations isn't nearly as big as you seem to believe - eSF is pretty much a baby KeSPA. I never argued OGN and KeSPA weren't separate, and I sympathize with OGN that they're the one losing in all of this. But I hold KeSPA responsible for it. ESF isn't remotely as powerful as KeSPA when it comes to how they can discipline their players. ESF doesn't hold the priorities of the sponsors above the players. ESF doesn't hold the licenses of their players which they can take away for disobeying a ban and completely pull the rug from their competitive career. ESF can't really force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass. Theres a huge difference. What makes you think eSF doesn't hold priorities of the sponsors above the players? In fact, the most recent events at WCS prove the opposite. KeSPA can't force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass, too - what makes you think otherwise? Wrong. As former KeSPA players they would need a progaming license to play in KeSPA events. If they leave they lose their license, and they never get to play in KeSPA events again (OS2L, this "big project", SC2 Proleague). Whereas players who leave eSF teams can still play in GSL and GSTL (Provided they move to a team that is in the GSTL or partnered with one which is).
Yup this, I am not sure why people don't realize that the players on the kespa teams can't really leave or they would be screwing themselves over. Not being able to play in anything kespa related and wouldn't get paid as much on a different team compared to their kespa teams.
|
I see esf more like a union, kespa more like a covering organisation. I don't know if this image is correct.
|
On August 27 2012 06:22 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:20 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:05 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 05:50 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 05:47 Sandermatt wrote:On August 27 2012 05:40 Salazarz wrote:
Btw, using the logic of eSF fanboys (sorry, I can't think of any other way to call it), eSF players are now being forced to go against their wishes with their boycott - after all, they have said multiple times in the past that playing in OSL and playing against KeSPA players in general is something they really look forward to doing, and want to do. But when eSF decides to boycott OSL despite players saying they want to play in it prior to these events, it's the players themselves deciding what's best for them in the long run. When the KeSPA players said they'd like to compete in GSL when possible and then KeSPA pulls out of GSL4, it's KeSPA forcing players to do shit they don't want to. Hmm!
Because Kespa represents the players employers and not the players. Kespa will ban the players if they join a tournament they do not agree. eSF has no sanction tool. And eSF have been fine in joining any other tournament than GSL. eSF is also fine with playing in OSL and Kespa playing in GSL. Something KeSPA cannot say. I'm pretty sure Coca, Byun, and Naniwa (to name a few) might disagree with you whether eSF / Gom have a 'sanction tool' or not. The thing about KeSPA 'refusing to play in GSL flat out' is bullshit. All they did was they won't play in season 4 - there is no real reason to read further into that. First of all, ESF and GOM are separate entities. Second of all, the players you listed were either "sanctioned" by their team, or by GOM. ESF had nothing to do with either. Also, stop comparing ESF to KeSPA as they are different kinds of representative bodies. One represents players, the other represents sponsors. Pretty EZ to understand. Apparently you need to read further into the consequences of 'not playing in season 4.' Yeah, just like OGN and KeSPA are separate entities. As for your second 'point', it doesn't really change anything. The point is players do what they are told by the people in charge; sure you could argue that eSF is managed by people who are closer to e-sports etcetc, but the fact remains that players do what they are told, just like under KeSPA. The different between the two organizations isn't nearly as big as you seem to believe - eSF is pretty much a baby KeSPA. I never argued OGN and KeSPA weren't separate, and I sympathize with OGN that they're the one losing in all of this. But I hold KeSPA responsible for it. ESF isn't remotely as powerful as KeSPA when it comes to how they can discipline their players. ESF doesn't hold the priorities of the sponsors above the players. ESF doesn't hold the licenses of their players which they can take away for disobeying a ban and completely pull the rug from their competitive career. ESF can't really force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass. Theres a huge difference. What makes you think eSF doesn't hold priorities of the sponsors above the players? In fact, the most recent events at WCS prove the opposite. KeSPA can't force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass, too - what makes you think otherwise?
Kespa is the "Greener Grass"...Also, Kespa has jurisdiction over all of their players.
|
On August 27 2012 06:30 stangstang wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:23 BgSBendeR wrote:
the GSL format is really bad. Remove code A and I have no doubt that KeSPA will allow their players to participate.
The whole Code A for 1 season then you get to play in Code S is fucking retarded.
So that's why you're so against esf's decision. I totally understand now.
Not at all, Just giving my personal opinion of the GSL Format. What I wrote so far isn't based one bit on GSL format.
|
On August 27 2012 06:32 BgSBendeR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:30 stangstang wrote:On August 27 2012 06:23 BgSBendeR wrote:
the GSL format is really bad. Remove code A and I have no doubt that KeSPA will allow their players to participate.
The whole Code A for 1 season then you get to play in Code S is fucking retarded.
So that's why you're so against esf's decision. I totally understand now. Not at all, Just giving my personal opinion of the GSL Format. What I wrote so far isn't based one bit on GSL format. So what does it have to do with the thread?
|
On August 27 2012 06:27 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:22 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:20 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:05 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 05:50 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 05:47 Sandermatt wrote:On August 27 2012 05:40 Salazarz wrote:
Btw, using the logic of eSF fanboys (sorry, I can't think of any other way to call it), eSF players are now being forced to go against their wishes with their boycott - after all, they have said multiple times in the past that playing in OSL and playing against KeSPA players in general is something they really look forward to doing, and want to do. But when eSF decides to boycott OSL despite players saying they want to play in it prior to these events, it's the players themselves deciding what's best for them in the long run. When the KeSPA players said they'd like to compete in GSL when possible and then KeSPA pulls out of GSL4, it's KeSPA forcing players to do shit they don't want to. Hmm!
Because Kespa represents the players employers and not the players. Kespa will ban the players if they join a tournament they do not agree. eSF has no sanction tool. And eSF have been fine in joining any other tournament than GSL. eSF is also fine with playing in OSL and Kespa playing in GSL. Something KeSPA cannot say. I'm pretty sure Coca, Byun, and Naniwa (to name a few) might disagree with you whether eSF / Gom have a 'sanction tool' or not. The thing about KeSPA 'refusing to play in GSL flat out' is bullshit. All they did was they won't play in season 4 - there is no real reason to read further into that. First of all, ESF and GOM are separate entities. Second of all, the players you listed were either "sanctioned" by their team, or by GOM. ESF had nothing to do with either. Also, stop comparing ESF to KeSPA as they are different kinds of representative bodies. One represents players, the other represents sponsors. Pretty EZ to understand. Apparently you need to read further into the consequences of 'not playing in season 4.' Yeah, just like OGN and KeSPA are separate entities. As for your second 'point', it doesn't really change anything. The point is players do what they are told by the people in charge; sure you could argue that eSF is managed by people who are closer to e-sports etcetc, but the fact remains that players do what they are told, just like under KeSPA. The different between the two organizations isn't nearly as big as you seem to believe - eSF is pretty much a baby KeSPA. I never argued OGN and KeSPA weren't separate, and I sympathize with OGN that they're the one losing in all of this. But I hold KeSPA responsible for it. ESF isn't remotely as powerful as KeSPA when it comes to how they can discipline their players. ESF doesn't hold the priorities of the sponsors above the players. ESF doesn't hold the licenses of their players which they can take away for disobeying a ban and completely pull the rug from their competitive career. ESF can't really force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass. Theres a huge difference. What makes you think eSF doesn't hold priorities of the sponsors above the players? In fact, the most recent events at WCS prove the opposite. KeSPA can't force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass, too - what makes you think otherwise? Wrong. As former KeSPA players they would need a progaming license to play in KeSPA events. If they leave they lose their license, and they never get to play in KeSPA events again (OS2L, this "big project", SC2 Proleague). Whereas players who leave eSF teams can still play in GSL and GSTL (Provided they move to a team that is in the GSTL or partnered with one which is).
Can you stop making random shit up to try and support your stupid arguments? It's really pathetic.
You say how a player leaving an eSF team can still play in GSTL if their new team is in GSTL - it's exactly the same with Proleague, what a surprise huh. And why are you saying someone leaving a KeSPA team would need a progaming license to play in OS2L. OGN made that tournament open to literally anyone.
edit: of course, the fact remains that KeSPA teams at least currently are the best managed ones, give players the most secure source of income, and the best development potential... but of course, being FREE!!!! is more important. lol.
|
On August 27 2012 06:30 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:26 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:23 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:21 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:17 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:15 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:14 BlazeFury01 wrote:
Personally, I believe that Kespa having tight management of their players is a good thing. We all saw what happened at WCS: MC, MVP, & Hero dropping out of the tournament to play in another tournament. It my opinion, that looked very unprofessional, considering the fact that those 3 spots should have been given to 3 other players who really wanted to participate. Actually, Hero's situation was discussed between Team Liquid and GOM prior to the start of the tournament. Both sides agreed that it's better for Hero to participate then drop. Indeed, but just the fact that the option was available is pretty retarded. I disagree on that. It's better for the teams and individual sponsors have more freedom of what tournaments to back, so sponsors will compete with each other. Sponsers will compete with each other regardless. Anytime rival teams players play each other, sponsers are competing. So, saying a player should be able to drop out tournament A to join tournament B so "sponsors will compete with each other" is plain ridiculous. Oh, I meant to say tournament. Anyways, sponsors aren't really competing against each other in KeSPA. Are you serious? Yes. Let's imagine if LG-IM was in KeSPA, and they wanted to send people off to IEM instead. Samsung might well have blocked them from doing so. Sponsors/teams can't individually act to attempt get maximum exposure.
http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/news/13468-stork-against-bisu-in-international-esports-festival-final
Look at the above link. They have sent players to IEM. So, what are you talking about? What point are you trying to make?
|
On August 27 2012 06:30 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:27 Jormundr wrote:On August 27 2012 06:22 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:20 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:05 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 05:50 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 05:47 Sandermatt wrote:On August 27 2012 05:40 Salazarz wrote:
Btw, using the logic of eSF fanboys (sorry, I can't think of any other way to call it), eSF players are now being forced to go against their wishes with their boycott - after all, they have said multiple times in the past that playing in OSL and playing against KeSPA players in general is something they really look forward to doing, and want to do. But when eSF decides to boycott OSL despite players saying they want to play in it prior to these events, it's the players themselves deciding what's best for them in the long run. When the KeSPA players said they'd like to compete in GSL when possible and then KeSPA pulls out of GSL4, it's KeSPA forcing players to do shit they don't want to. Hmm!
Because Kespa represents the players employers and not the players. Kespa will ban the players if they join a tournament they do not agree. eSF has no sanction tool. And eSF have been fine in joining any other tournament than GSL. eSF is also fine with playing in OSL and Kespa playing in GSL. Something KeSPA cannot say. I'm pretty sure Coca, Byun, and Naniwa (to name a few) might disagree with you whether eSF / Gom have a 'sanction tool' or not. The thing about KeSPA 'refusing to play in GSL flat out' is bullshit. All they did was they won't play in season 4 - there is no real reason to read further into that. First of all, ESF and GOM are separate entities. Second of all, the players you listed were either "sanctioned" by their team, or by GOM. ESF had nothing to do with either. Also, stop comparing ESF to KeSPA as they are different kinds of representative bodies. One represents players, the other represents sponsors. Pretty EZ to understand. Apparently you need to read further into the consequences of 'not playing in season 4.' Yeah, just like OGN and KeSPA are separate entities. As for your second 'point', it doesn't really change anything. The point is players do what they are told by the people in charge; sure you could argue that eSF is managed by people who are closer to e-sports etcetc, but the fact remains that players do what they are told, just like under KeSPA. The different between the two organizations isn't nearly as big as you seem to believe - eSF is pretty much a baby KeSPA. I never argued OGN and KeSPA weren't separate, and I sympathize with OGN that they're the one losing in all of this. But I hold KeSPA responsible for it. ESF isn't remotely as powerful as KeSPA when it comes to how they can discipline their players. ESF doesn't hold the priorities of the sponsors above the players. ESF doesn't hold the licenses of their players which they can take away for disobeying a ban and completely pull the rug from their competitive career. ESF can't really force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass. Theres a huge difference. What makes you think eSF doesn't hold priorities of the sponsors above the players? In fact, the most recent events at WCS prove the opposite. KeSPA can't force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass, too - what makes you think otherwise? Wrong. As former KeSPA players they would need a progaming license to play in KeSPA events. If they leave they lose their license, and they never get to play in KeSPA events again (OS2L, this "big project", SC2 Proleague). Whereas players who leave eSF teams can still play in GSL and GSTL (Provided they move to a team that is in the GSTL or partnered with one which is). Yup this, I am not sure why people don't realize that the players on the kespa teams can't really leave or they would be screwing themselves over. Not being able to play in anything kespa related and wouldn't get paid as much on a different team compared to their kespa teams.
That, and they have much better salaries too. They have everything to lose and little to gain by leaving.
|
On August 27 2012 06:23 BgSBendeR wrote:
the GSL format is really bad. Remove code A and I have no doubt that KeSPA will allow their players to participate.
The whole Code A for 1 season then you get to play in Code S is fucking retarded.
Sorry you don't like the format. Unfortunately KeSPA was offered 2 code S seeds, 2 up and down seeds (aka 4 deserving players can make it into code S this season) and some code A seeds.
Also the playing code A for one season so that you can qualify for Code S isn't retarded, it just makes it difficult to get into Code S(because Code S is supposed to be the best of the best, you know?).
|
On August 27 2012 06:33 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:30 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:26 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:23 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:21 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:17 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:15 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:14 BlazeFury01 wrote:
Personally, I believe that Kespa having tight management of their players is a good thing. We all saw what happened at WCS: MC, MVP, & Hero dropping out of the tournament to play in another tournament. It my opinion, that looked very unprofessional, considering the fact that those 3 spots should have been given to 3 other players who really wanted to participate. Actually, Hero's situation was discussed between Team Liquid and GOM prior to the start of the tournament. Both sides agreed that it's better for Hero to participate then drop. Indeed, but just the fact that the option was available is pretty retarded. I disagree on that. It's better for the teams and individual sponsors have more freedom of what tournaments to back, so sponsors will compete with each other. Sponsers will compete with each other regardless. Anytime rival teams players play each other, sponsers are competing. So, saying a player should be able to drop out tournament A to join tournament B so "sponsors will compete with each other" is plain ridiculous. Oh, I meant to say tournament. Anyways, sponsors aren't really competing against each other in KeSPA. Are you serious? Yes. Let's imagine if LG-IM was in KeSPA, and they wanted to send people off to IEM instead. Samsung might well have blocked them from doing so. Sponsors/teams can't individually act to attempt get maximum exposure. http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/news/13468-stork-against-bisu-in-international-esports-festival-finalLook at the above link. They have sent players to IEM. So, what are you talking about? What point are you trying to make?
But the decision to send people that time was done as a KeSPA decision, no? Not Samsung decision?
|
On August 27 2012 06:33 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:30 blade55555 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:27 Jormundr wrote:On August 27 2012 06:22 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:20 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:05 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 05:50 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 05:47 Sandermatt wrote:On August 27 2012 05:40 Salazarz wrote:
Btw, using the logic of eSF fanboys (sorry, I can't think of any other way to call it), eSF players are now being forced to go against their wishes with their boycott - after all, they have said multiple times in the past that playing in OSL and playing against KeSPA players in general is something they really look forward to doing, and want to do. But when eSF decides to boycott OSL despite players saying they want to play in it prior to these events, it's the players themselves deciding what's best for them in the long run. When the KeSPA players said they'd like to compete in GSL when possible and then KeSPA pulls out of GSL4, it's KeSPA forcing players to do shit they don't want to. Hmm!
Because Kespa represents the players employers and not the players. Kespa will ban the players if they join a tournament they do not agree. eSF has no sanction tool. And eSF have been fine in joining any other tournament than GSL. eSF is also fine with playing in OSL and Kespa playing in GSL. Something KeSPA cannot say. I'm pretty sure Coca, Byun, and Naniwa (to name a few) might disagree with you whether eSF / Gom have a 'sanction tool' or not. The thing about KeSPA 'refusing to play in GSL flat out' is bullshit. All they did was they won't play in season 4 - there is no real reason to read further into that. First of all, ESF and GOM are separate entities. Second of all, the players you listed were either "sanctioned" by their team, or by GOM. ESF had nothing to do with either. Also, stop comparing ESF to KeSPA as they are different kinds of representative bodies. One represents players, the other represents sponsors. Pretty EZ to understand. Apparently you need to read further into the consequences of 'not playing in season 4.' Yeah, just like OGN and KeSPA are separate entities. As for your second 'point', it doesn't really change anything. The point is players do what they are told by the people in charge; sure you could argue that eSF is managed by people who are closer to e-sports etcetc, but the fact remains that players do what they are told, just like under KeSPA. The different between the two organizations isn't nearly as big as you seem to believe - eSF is pretty much a baby KeSPA. I never argued OGN and KeSPA weren't separate, and I sympathize with OGN that they're the one losing in all of this. But I hold KeSPA responsible for it. ESF isn't remotely as powerful as KeSPA when it comes to how they can discipline their players. ESF doesn't hold the priorities of the sponsors above the players. ESF doesn't hold the licenses of their players which they can take away for disobeying a ban and completely pull the rug from their competitive career. ESF can't really force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass. Theres a huge difference. What makes you think eSF doesn't hold priorities of the sponsors above the players? In fact, the most recent events at WCS prove the opposite. KeSPA can't force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass, too - what makes you think otherwise? Wrong. As former KeSPA players they would need a progaming license to play in KeSPA events. If they leave they lose their license, and they never get to play in KeSPA events again (OS2L, this "big project", SC2 Proleague). Whereas players who leave eSF teams can still play in GSL and GSTL (Provided they move to a team that is in the GSTL or partnered with one which is). Yup this, I am not sure why people don't realize that the players on the kespa teams can't really leave or they would be screwing themselves over. Not being able to play in anything kespa related and wouldn't get paid as much on a different team compared to their kespa teams. That, and they have much better salaries too. They have everything to lose and little to gain by leaving.
This might be true for the BW stars. For the B-teamers the problem is nobody wants to hire them until they show promising skill or a fanbase,
|
On August 27 2012 06:36 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:33 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:30 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:26 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:23 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:21 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:17 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:16 BlazeFury01 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:15 achan1058 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:14 BlazeFury01 wrote:
Personally, I believe that Kespa having tight management of their players is a good thing. We all saw what happened at WCS: MC, MVP, & Hero dropping out of the tournament to play in another tournament. It my opinion, that looked very unprofessional, considering the fact that those 3 spots should have been given to 3 other players who really wanted to participate. Actually, Hero's situation was discussed between Team Liquid and GOM prior to the start of the tournament. Both sides agreed that it's better for Hero to participate then drop. Indeed, but just the fact that the option was available is pretty retarded. I disagree on that. It's better for the teams and individual sponsors have more freedom of what tournaments to back, so sponsors will compete with each other. Sponsers will compete with each other regardless. Anytime rival teams players play each other, sponsers are competing. So, saying a player should be able to drop out tournament A to join tournament B so "sponsors will compete with each other" is plain ridiculous. Oh, I meant to say tournament. Anyways, sponsors aren't really competing against each other in KeSPA. Are you serious? Yes. Let's imagine if LG-IM was in KeSPA, and they wanted to send people off to IEM instead. Samsung might well have blocked them from doing so. Sponsors/teams can't individually act to attempt get maximum exposure. http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/news/13468-stork-against-bisu-in-international-esports-festival-finalLook at the above link. They have sent players to IEM. So, what are you talking about? What point are you trying to make? But the decision to send people that time was done as a KeSPA decision, no? Not Samsung decision?
I cannot answer that as I do not know the discussion that took place between the two. It is only an assumption at this point.
|
On August 27 2012 06:37 Sandermatt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:33 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:30 blade55555 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:27 Jormundr wrote:On August 27 2012 06:22 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:20 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:05 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 05:50 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 05:47 Sandermatt wrote:
[quote]
Because Kespa represents the players employers and not the players. Kespa will ban the players if they join a tournament they do not agree. eSF has no sanction tool. And eSF have been fine in joining any other tournament than GSL.
eSF is also fine with playing in OSL and Kespa playing in GSL. Something KeSPA cannot say. I'm pretty sure Coca, Byun, and Naniwa (to name a few) might disagree with you whether eSF / Gom have a 'sanction tool' or not. The thing about KeSPA 'refusing to play in GSL flat out' is bullshit. All they did was they won't play in season 4 - there is no real reason to read further into that. First of all, ESF and GOM are separate entities. Second of all, the players you listed were either "sanctioned" by their team, or by GOM. ESF had nothing to do with either. Also, stop comparing ESF to KeSPA as they are different kinds of representative bodies. One represents players, the other represents sponsors. Pretty EZ to understand. Apparently you need to read further into the consequences of 'not playing in season 4.' Yeah, just like OGN and KeSPA are separate entities. As for your second 'point', it doesn't really change anything. The point is players do what they are told by the people in charge; sure you could argue that eSF is managed by people who are closer to e-sports etcetc, but the fact remains that players do what they are told, just like under KeSPA. The different between the two organizations isn't nearly as big as you seem to believe - eSF is pretty much a baby KeSPA. I never argued OGN and KeSPA weren't separate, and I sympathize with OGN that they're the one losing in all of this. But I hold KeSPA responsible for it. ESF isn't remotely as powerful as KeSPA when it comes to how they can discipline their players. ESF doesn't hold the priorities of the sponsors above the players. ESF doesn't hold the licenses of their players which they can take away for disobeying a ban and completely pull the rug from their competitive career. ESF can't really force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass. Theres a huge difference. What makes you think eSF doesn't hold priorities of the sponsors above the players? In fact, the most recent events at WCS prove the opposite. KeSPA can't force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass, too - what makes you think otherwise? Wrong. As former KeSPA players they would need a progaming license to play in KeSPA events. If they leave they lose their license, and they never get to play in KeSPA events again (OS2L, this "big project", SC2 Proleague). Whereas players who leave eSF teams can still play in GSL and GSTL (Provided they move to a team that is in the GSTL or partnered with one which is). Yup this, I am not sure why people don't realize that the players on the kespa teams can't really leave or they would be screwing themselves over. Not being able to play in anything kespa related and wouldn't get paid as much on a different team compared to their kespa teams. That, and they have much better salaries too. They have everything to lose and little to gain by leaving. This might be true for the BW stars. For the B-teamers the problem is nobody wants to hire them until they show promising skill or a fanbase,
And how is that different for eSF B-teamers?
|
On August 27 2012 06:38 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:37 Sandermatt wrote:On August 27 2012 06:33 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:30 blade55555 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:27 Jormundr wrote:On August 27 2012 06:22 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:20 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:05 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 05:50 Salazarz wrote:
[quote]
I'm pretty sure Coca, Byun, and Naniwa (to name a few) might disagree with you whether eSF / Gom have a 'sanction tool' or not. The thing about KeSPA 'refusing to play in GSL flat out' is bullshit. All they did was they won't play in season 4 - there is no real reason to read further into that. First of all, ESF and GOM are separate entities. Second of all, the players you listed were either "sanctioned" by their team, or by GOM. ESF had nothing to do with either. Also, stop comparing ESF to KeSPA as they are different kinds of representative bodies. One represents players, the other represents sponsors. Pretty EZ to understand. Apparently you need to read further into the consequences of 'not playing in season 4.' Yeah, just like OGN and KeSPA are separate entities. As for your second 'point', it doesn't really change anything. The point is players do what they are told by the people in charge; sure you could argue that eSF is managed by people who are closer to e-sports etcetc, but the fact remains that players do what they are told, just like under KeSPA. The different between the two organizations isn't nearly as big as you seem to believe - eSF is pretty much a baby KeSPA. I never argued OGN and KeSPA weren't separate, and I sympathize with OGN that they're the one losing in all of this. But I hold KeSPA responsible for it. ESF isn't remotely as powerful as KeSPA when it comes to how they can discipline their players. ESF doesn't hold the priorities of the sponsors above the players. ESF doesn't hold the licenses of their players which they can take away for disobeying a ban and completely pull the rug from their competitive career. ESF can't really force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass. Theres a huge difference. What makes you think eSF doesn't hold priorities of the sponsors above the players? In fact, the most recent events at WCS prove the opposite. KeSPA can't force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass, too - what makes you think otherwise? Wrong. As former KeSPA players they would need a progaming license to play in KeSPA events. If they leave they lose their license, and they never get to play in KeSPA events again (OS2L, this "big project", SC2 Proleague). Whereas players who leave eSF teams can still play in GSL and GSTL (Provided they move to a team that is in the GSTL or partnered with one which is). Yup this, I am not sure why people don't realize that the players on the kespa teams can't really leave or they would be screwing themselves over. Not being able to play in anything kespa related and wouldn't get paid as much on a different team compared to their kespa teams. That, and they have much better salaries too. They have everything to lose and little to gain by leaving. This might be true for the BW stars. For the B-teamers the problem is nobody wants to hire them until they show promising skill or a fanbase, And how is that different for eSF B-teamers?
They can continue to participate in tournaments, and there are a lot more tournaments to participate in.
|
On August 27 2012 06:38 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2012 06:37 Sandermatt wrote:On August 27 2012 06:33 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:30 blade55555 wrote:On August 27 2012 06:27 Jormundr wrote:On August 27 2012 06:22 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:20 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 06:12 Salazarz wrote:On August 27 2012 06:05 rd wrote:On August 27 2012 05:50 Salazarz wrote:
[quote]
I'm pretty sure Coca, Byun, and Naniwa (to name a few) might disagree with you whether eSF / Gom have a 'sanction tool' or not. The thing about KeSPA 'refusing to play in GSL flat out' is bullshit. All they did was they won't play in season 4 - there is no real reason to read further into that. First of all, ESF and GOM are separate entities. Second of all, the players you listed were either "sanctioned" by their team, or by GOM. ESF had nothing to do with either. Also, stop comparing ESF to KeSPA as they are different kinds of representative bodies. One represents players, the other represents sponsors. Pretty EZ to understand. Apparently you need to read further into the consequences of 'not playing in season 4.' Yeah, just like OGN and KeSPA are separate entities. As for your second 'point', it doesn't really change anything. The point is players do what they are told by the people in charge; sure you could argue that eSF is managed by people who are closer to e-sports etcetc, but the fact remains that players do what they are told, just like under KeSPA. The different between the two organizations isn't nearly as big as you seem to believe - eSF is pretty much a baby KeSPA. I never argued OGN and KeSPA weren't separate, and I sympathize with OGN that they're the one losing in all of this. But I hold KeSPA responsible for it. ESF isn't remotely as powerful as KeSPA when it comes to how they can discipline their players. ESF doesn't hold the priorities of the sponsors above the players. ESF doesn't hold the licenses of their players which they can take away for disobeying a ban and completely pull the rug from their competitive career. ESF can't really force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass. Theres a huge difference. What makes you think eSF doesn't hold priorities of the sponsors above the players? In fact, the most recent events at WCS prove the opposite. KeSPA can't force their players to do anything as the player could just leave and find greener grass, too - what makes you think otherwise? Wrong. As former KeSPA players they would need a progaming license to play in KeSPA events. If they leave they lose their license, and they never get to play in KeSPA events again (OS2L, this "big project", SC2 Proleague). Whereas players who leave eSF teams can still play in GSL and GSTL (Provided they move to a team that is in the GSTL or partnered with one which is). Yup this, I am not sure why people don't realize that the players on the kespa teams can't really leave or they would be screwing themselves over. Not being able to play in anything kespa related and wouldn't get paid as much on a different team compared to their kespa teams. That, and they have much better salaries too. They have everything to lose and little to gain by leaving. This might be true for the BW stars. For the B-teamers the problem is nobody wants to hire them until they show promising skill or a fanbase, And how is that different for eSF B-teamers?
There is no difference in that sense. The difference lies in the acceptance of playing for Kespa and also getting that hands on experience of the highest level of play. It is much like an intern at a major company.
|
Didn't Blizzard said they would announce something? Really timely, Blizzard
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
