| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Cheren
United States2911 Posts
On January 28 2014 13:07 Jindo wrote: Terrible decision. At least have something for 2nd and 3rd place. Not gonna watch this. $60k first, $30k second, $10k third would be better and still really hype. | ||
|
mikumegurine
Canada3145 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On January 28 2014 13:34 wongfeihung wrote: I love everything about this. I have grown tired of esports causing players to be satisfied with losing, i.e. players being satisfied with placing top 32, 16, etc. In the olden days, people played with the objective of winning and being the best. Money was just an added incentive. It used to be called competitive gaming, not esports. This tournament embodies that mindset. Yeah... Those days didn't exist. Ever. Money is what made it a professional competition, because money is what lets you dedicate your time and effort. But if you ever want to see your glory days again, feel free to watch all the low-master and diamond streams that are listed on the sidebar. | ||
|
Roman666
Poland1440 Posts
On January 28 2014 13:38 mikumegurine wrote: IEM T-Shirts for 2nd and 3rd place perhaps? NO! 0$ means 0$ in cash and goods. | ||
|
BreakingBrad
Canada14 Posts
| ||
|
ArTiFaKs
United States1229 Posts
On January 28 2014 13:42 WolfintheSheep wrote: Yeah... Those days didn't exist. Ever. Money is what made it a professional competition, because money is what lets you dedicate your time and effort. But if you ever want to see your glory days again, feel free to watch all the low-master and diamond streams that are listed on the sidebar. uhh what? You might want to freshen up on your reading comprehension because you addressed absolutely nothing he said in his comment. What does low-master/diamond streams have to do with anything he just said? And honestly I don't get what the big deal is here people? IEM will have given out 125k in prize pools before this tournament, and inviting 1st/2nd place finishes from the previous tournaments means that they have already won significant amounts of prize money from IEM recently. So a chance to battle it out for 100k is pretty fucking awesome. So what if the finalists decide split some of the money under the table, that's between them and as long as the games are good, why not? And at that point if you are confident enough, why would you want to split any with someone else? If you are playing really well, and are confident against your opponent, why not just go balls out. And as previously mentioned, WCS system is set up to compensate players below the top tier, which IEM explained in there reasoning for this tournament. I'm really excited they are deciding to switch it up a bit, adding some extra hype, especially since we can see 100+ tournaments with the same fucking format all throughout the year. It's not like IEM is cancelling other stops to put on this tournament, there is still going to be plenty of IEM's with the usual format to appease the boring, traditional fans who don't like it when things get changed up a bit. I say go for it and this is fucking awesome. And those tweets by Total Biscuit are pretty fucking lame, that article is from 2012 so the current competitive climate is totally different, and he complete ignores the reasoning laid out by the tournament organizers. Can't fucking wait to watch this! | ||
|
igay
Australia1178 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
| ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
On January 28 2014 14:46 y0su wrote: As a principal I'm against winner-take-all tournaments. However, I get what IEM is trying to accomplish and I think it could work. I'm not against it on principle, but while I sort of get what they're trying at, this is the wrong time. You can't just pull surprises like this with 3 out of 5 events already complete. Everything needs to be on the table at the start of a season. | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
The winner winning that much does not make the event any more "epic" except for the very shallow sorts of people who are so easily excited by seeing flashy numbers. The @#%$ing game should entertain people, not how much money is being thrown at just one of all the players competing. ;_; We're going to have different opinions, but yes, this is one matter where my feelings are at one of the ends of the scale. It's essentially a marketing gimmick to attract attention with a large first prize without caring about how it affects those competing. Sure, it'll be a thrill to win that much, but on the other hands, there's a good chance it'll be someone who has already won plenty, so I hardly think they'll they'll appreciate it quite so much as some others would and you're better off letting some not quite as successful players get a little bit for their trouble. How many other events are there for people to compete in around the same time? I hope there's plenty of choice so that this is just an option for those who don't mind gambling all their effort on the hope that they can make it to the finals and win, while others can go to less flashy but more rewarding tournaments (except for the actual winner). GAH.  As an aside, I wonder whether there's any trend for people to favour this format if they are generally politically right-leaning and to disapprove of this format if they are more left-leaning. EDIT: On January 28 2014 13:34 wongfeihung wrote: I love everything about this. I have grown tired of esports causing players to be satisfied with losing, i.e. players being satisfied with placing top 32, 16, etc. In the olden days, people played with the objective of winning and being the best. Money was just an added incentive. It used to be called competitive gaming, not esports. This tournament embodies that mindset. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but you seem to have just suggested that when money was only given to the top placed player in a competition, people had more reason to play just for the competitive feeling of being the best. Do you realise that doesn't make any sense? If people are not given so much money for winning first and can get "decent" (obviously highly subjective) prizes for placing in the top 3, 4, 8 or 16, winning for the pride or for the sake of knowing that you tried hard mainly for your own personal desire to win, to be the best, to make history and that you succeeded. I would also argue that more impressive first prizes and lower/no consolation prizes encourages more "lame" all-in play, or whatever has the highest win-rate. If people are motivated to win just for the sake of winning, then the money is irrelevant, yes, but if you are motivated by the desire for glory or something like that, they may well want to win in style,putting their name in history not only as a winner, but as an unforgettable, stylish, impressive fan-favourite who was also a champion. Money only for first place encourages playing to win at all costs, no matter how uninteresting. Should we have a very long SH vs toss final, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, serves you right. >:D | ||
|
CuSToM
United States1478 Posts
looking forward to this, hopefully IEM doesn't go back on it. :D | ||
|
ninjamyst
United States1903 Posts
| ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
Small Bills Preferably | ||
|
Fuchsteufelswild
Australia2028 Posts
On January 28 2014 15:02 CuSToM wrote: this is awesome. not sure why everyone outside of industry people are so angry about it, because it doesn't affect you at all. looking forward to this, hopefully IEM doesn't go back on it. :D Doesn't affect us so we shouldn't care about those it does affect? :\ Not everyone cares only about what affects themselves. Compassion is one thing that comes into it. | ||
|
Steins;Gate
1422 Posts
@MCtoss2 fuck yeah! iem championship is 100000$ ezpz so i can buy audi r8 looool | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
| ||
|
Enstein
Russian Federation134 Posts
| ||
|
Muffloe
Sweden6061 Posts
On January 28 2014 15:00 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: Disgusting. The winner winning that much does not make the event any more "epic" except for the very shallow sorts of people who are so easily excited by seeing flashy numbers. The @#%$ing game should entertain people, not how much money is being thrown at just one of all the players competing. ;_; We're going to have different opinions, but yes, this is one matter where my feelings are at one of the ends of the scale. It's essentially a marketing gimmick to attract attention with a large first prize without caring about how it affects those competing. Sure, it'll be a thrill to win that much, but on the other hands, there's a good chance it'll be someone who has already won plenty, so I hardly think they'll they'll appreciate it quite so much as some others would and you're better off letting some not quite as successful players get a little bit for their trouble. How many other events are there for people to compete in around the same time? I hope there's plenty of choice so that this is just an option for those who don't mind gambling all their effort on the hope that they can make it to the finals and win, while others can go to less flashy but more rewarding tournaments (except for the actual winner). GAH. As an aside, I wonder whether there's any trend for people to favour this format if they are generally politically right-leaning and to disapprove of this format if they are more left-leaning. EDIT: Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but you seem to have just suggested that when money was only given to the top placed player in a competition, people had more reason to play just for the competitive feeling of being the best. Do you realise that doesn't make any sense? If people are not given so much money for winning first and can get "decent" (obviously highly subjective) prizes for placing in the top 3, 4, 8 or 16, winning for the pride or for the sake of knowing that you tried hard mainly for your own personal desire to win, to be the best, to make history and that you succeeded. I would also argue that more impressive first prizes and lower/no consolation prizes encourages more "lame" all-in play, or whatever has the highest win-rate. If people are motivated to win just for the sake of winning, then the money is irrelevant, yes, but if you are motivated by the desire for glory or something like that, they may well want to win in style,putting their name in history not only as a winner, but as an unforgettable, stylish, impressive fan-favourite who was also a champion. Money only for first place encourages playing to win at all costs, no matter how uninteresting. Should we have a very long SH vs toss final, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah, serves you right. >:D Awesome comment! | ||
|
Shinta)
United States1716 Posts
On January 28 2014 15:09 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: Doesn't affect us so we shouldn't care about those it does affect? :\ Not everyone cares only about what affects themselves. Compassion is one thing that comes into it. Besides, why do so many people fail to realize that what's bad for players is also bad for tournament organizers, bad for teams, and bad for viewers. If players can't play, then none of the others exist. Of course one tournament won't break the system, but the fact that IEM is saying that they don't give no fucks about it all, and just want a quick "get rich quick" event instead of running an event that they already had promised to run, is disgusting, and should be looked down upon. There are other ways to do this in which everyone wins, but IEM don't care. | ||
|
thezanursic
5500 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
