|
This 5-per-team rule assumes that every team will be able to field 5 players. As I understand it, Xeris has said that WhiteRa is considered to be on a team since he is sponsored. This destroys a beautiful balance of teams that they believe this rule will create.
Here are the scenarios:
(1) A player (we'll stick with WhiteRa for the example) who is sponsored on a "team" of one is invited to NASL. If all other teams can field 5 players, then one team is arbitrarily punished and can only enter four of their members. How do you decide which team isn't deserving?
(2) This requisite imbalance to teams is considered too harsh, and WhiteRa is not invited. How can you have a league that is wants the best players in the world and not invite this guy. He's been one of the most dominant players in the most recent tournaments. The entire credibility of the league is brought into question when a player similar to WhiteRa wants to enter the tourney but is denied.
(3) This will be not considered a problem because there will be other teams in the league who cannot field 5 slots. The rationale behind this thought is that all of these issues will figure themselves out because there will be some teams of 2, 3, or 4 members. First of all the math says that some team of 5 will still be arbitrarily punished with less slots. More importantly, however, what the hell is the point in limiting it to 5 members in the first place. There will already be an imbalance of team representation. Why punish a team like TL for having a great roster of 6 players. Is collusion seriously that big of a concern?
From what Xeris said on SOTG, he's hoping that this will balance out team distribution in the community. Really? The community was here before NASL, and should NASL fail, it will still be here. SC tournaments have been happening for a long time. If this is a "players league" then it should be considerate of community norms.
Finally, this is an individual league. We want to see the best players in the world, not the best players from each team. Would anyone seriously enjoy a player from a lesser team who gets crushed repeatedly over the addition of a member of TL or Root? Gomtv seems to get by just fine without this kind of rule. Could you imagine them telling a 6th member from IM they aren't wanted? Let the best players play.
I am still looking forward to this league, and wish it the best of luck, but why are they messing with a good thing?
|
If (1) the 5 players per team limit is enforced and (2) the NASL gets really popular, then people will just divide up their teams and create new ones so that all their players have a chance. The 5 player rule should be removed.
|
Why is everyone under the impression that if all TL pros apply that they'll be accepted?Most of this thread is so biased they probably think that the top 64 players in the world play in the GSL too.
The whole invite-only is the problem imo, players should earn their way into this league.
|
On February 24 2011 10:15 kNightLite wrote:
If worst comes to worst, any SC2 team that has more 5 players could split up into "Team Liquid A" and "Team Liquid B", so I don't see how the five-man limit necessarily hurts already established teams. It's the future that I'm more worried about.
There are two possibilities, here. One possibility is that a team does that and they're allowed into the NASL, in which case the rule was pointless in the first place and did nothing but add bureaucracy. The other possibility is that the admins will say "no, you're not really a separate team, so you still can't play", which means that some players are going to be permanently shut out of the NASL unless they ditch their teams (ed: or their team rotates players in an attempt to be fair, which really just spreads the punishment around).
|
Yeah, kind of how TL and OGS formed an alliance in Korea. This is definitely going to happen. The only difference is that teams that will purposely split there players into subdivisions and in the end everyone is happy -____-. Just that reason alone should be enough to take the 5 player per team rule out.
I want to state that I am a supporter of Team Gaseous; Team Liquids new subdivision of heroes.
Team Gaseous....HWAITING!!
|
On February 24 2011 11:50 DanceSC wrote:
Their whole 'vote for your favorite players to increase their chances of being chosen for the league' is gay... I can see from a promotional stand point, where they want to get the crowd picks to increase popularity to start... but if this is how they are going to choose who can play and who cant then they are only screwing themselves over.
Its been stated somewhere (forget where, maybe SotG , or the offical Q&A thread) that the voting will have very little to do with who gets to particpate in the NASL.
Anyways.. my gripes with the team rules are..
All of the best Korean teams have a fair amount more than 5 players, which opens up the possibility for a real practice house and great practice games with teammates. A team with 5 or less players wouldn't have a big as incentive to open up a gaming house - which is at least correlated with great increases in the skill of the players.
At this point these rules do not effect very many teams, but it stops teams from wanting to grow if they effectively get punished for having more than 6 top players. Tyler's suggestion of all team matches playing first in the league is a great workaround of collusion issues and would make for some good drama.
The team rules prevent team growth and put unnecessary requirements on the entrance of the league that has the chance of really screwing someone over. The only things that should matter: skill, the ability to produce entertaining games, and the ability to get people to pay for tickets have the chance to be overridden because of the team rules. It might not happen now, it might not happen ever, but the chance of it happening is what concerns me.
|
There'll probably be affiliated teams and such. One wonders how they'll handle oGs, considering oGs and TL because it could be argued that they're two teams in name only. When two teams are training together in the same practice house, collaborating even for team leagues (iirc TL players have played for ogs). What about Prime.WE?
|
On February 24 2011 06:20 Megaliskuu wrote:
Team Gaseous fighting!
This was the best part of the STOG the other day, i could not stop laughing while at the same time he was making a great point. First the clocks now this. Wow Tyler is on a roll with the logic and i could not agree more with what he has outlined here, i hope to see more information from NASL about this and that a good compromise of fix might be added after the first season, only if it turns out to be a problem that is.
|
all those comparisons to teamsports make NO SENSE whatsoever. Its still an individual league.
The only thing that could be akin to it might be Tennisplayers both having endorsement deals with Nike.
With 50 players, lets say you need at least 15-20 teams to sustain this, where do all the different sponsors come from?
Once certain good team establish, you´ll ven increse teh chance they meet ion the playofs since those players are more likely to survive the divisional rounds.
I also think it opens door to alot of "EG Teqam A/Team B" team liquid A and B etc that youc ant controll it? Where does NASL draw the line of "no you are jsut a B-team" compared to "you are an own team"
In my opinion its a VERY VERY bad decision for esports as tyler said, as it forces bad blood into teams, mgiht break freindships, might prevent us from seeing the best 50 players in the world
(do you expect tyler (hypotheticly) join with another team that doesnt ven have salaries, doesnt stipend his travels, but has a spot open for NASL?
this all team member restriction jsut makes no sense whatsoever to me, and seems so totally arbitrary.
5 because of 5 divisions? make 10 divisios a 5 players.and seed in such a way teammates dont hit if thats so important.
(i worry more about mathces in divisions becomng totaly boring in the midtable region because of relegated players/top 4 already set in stone.
bah, now i am jsut rambling, thats my 22cents 
|
On February 24 2011 12:09 Severian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2011 10:15 kNightLite wrote:
If worst comes to worst, any SC2 team that has more 5 players could split up into "Team Liquid A" and "Team Liquid B", so I don't see how the five-man limit necessarily hurts already established teams. It's the future that I'm more worried about. There are two possibilities, here. One possibility is that a team does that and they're allowed into the NASL, in which case the rule was pointless in the first place and did nothing but add bureaucracy. The other possibility is that the admins will say "no, you're not really a separate team, so you still can't play", which means that some players are going to be permanently shut out of the NASL unless they ditch their teams (ed: or their team rotates players in an attempt to be fair, which really just spreads the punishment around).
I just thought about a huge flaw now. This one really scares me lol. Here goes...
What if NASL admins deny teams because of the reason mentioned above... So what can the team do?
All the team has to do is say that there is no affiliation with the parent team right? And they can get another sponsor but the parent sponsor will still provide most of the funds to the child team?
Could this be possible? Example: Team liquid A is publicly sponsored by The little app factory. Now team liquid B is formed and publicly sponsored by Pepsi; But in reality most of the funds will still be coming from The little app factory. Then 3 people from team liquid A announce there retirement from that team and join TL B. In the end they don't have to prove that TL A and TL B are connected since there both publicly sponsored by different companies.
So if this is possible then this is exactly the workaround to this rule. Now from here, the main question could be "If these new teams that get made create a team house and harbor TL A and TL B players in it and then they announce that they formed an alliance just like what happened in Korea with Prime.WE, OGS-TL etc. Would NASL penalize them for forming alliances as well? How far would NASL go to prevent something like this?
In the end, I actually see NASL being forced to eliminate the 5 man rule because I just finished creating the workaround to this lol
Only time will tell from here assuming this rule doesn't change -________-
|
I agree with this simply because I see absolutely no reason for teams to be taken into account at all in an individual league. Team strategy, substitutions, etc. all come to play in a team league such as the Pro League, but OSL/MSL/GSL were never about teams. Also, if you're going to require players to be on teams, you need to clearly define what constitutes a legitimate team. If I get together with 3 friends and plaster the name of our local gift shop on our t-shirts, does that make us a team? Some of these rules just seem overly complicated, but not really well thought out.
Why can't they just keep it simple without all of this voting and team stuff and just do some sort of qualification process like everyone else? Despite all the talk about all-in strategies and such, it's been shown time and time again that you're very unlikely to get random players with no skill getting all the way through qualifiers and into the main tournament. Sure, a big named favorite might get knocked out, but they're still more likely to get through than any random newb.
|
The team limit thing just shows how far behind the west is compared to Koreans in sc2. Startale, Incredible miracle, Ogs, foU, TSL all have gaming houses with room for 20 players (in pretty cramped conditions) who are all competitive willing to compete for a bimonthly prize pool that is less than one NASL season and in a horridly difficult one month long tournament that only gives 1500 dollars.
Meanwhile the foreigners are bickering and undercutting each other because one or two team have more than 3 good players. And from the looks of it no teams have made plans for a gaming house in NA to play for this prize either, pretty odd since some teams were willing to do it for EPS and send players to GSL. So I am expecting the lag that plagues other tournaments to show up in the nasl as well.
I am not blaming the NASL in anyway for this inaction. Western esports really needs to step up and take what NASL has given them and go to America to play. Its great that the final 16 will truly be a world class production with lan and a studio but I am really hoping that in season 2 or season3, the ro32 will all be done on lan.
|
On SoTG the reason for not having 10 divisions of 5 players was because they want a 9 week regular season. Now I am no expert on the matter but I am pretty sure modern sports have developed this thing called inter-league play. So my suggestion would be to have 10 divisions of 5 players each, where there would be 5 divisional games and 5 inter-league games. this would allow a team to field 10 players before any "collusion" problems occur. Actually I think having inter-league play would make it much harder for collusion to occur.
The downside may be that it is harder to "tell the story" of inter-league games as opposed to simple divisional play.
edit: added a downside.
|
I agree 100%. For a singles league like NASL, the team shouldn't play a large role. If the NASL were a team league, I would understand restricting individual participation, but it simply isn't a team league.
"Collusion" is a non-issue. The GSL had teammates playing each other, and there were no problems there. A player can't win a tournament by getting free wins from teammates.
Restricting the tournament to 10 teams and 5 players per team does nothing but prevent the growth of teams. A team like Liquid can't grow, because they've hit the maximum. Instead the good players will seek out weaker teams. Someone like Haypro could be benched while a scrub from team X gets to play, because of the rules. It's just not good for strong teams.
Another problem is that there's only room for 10 teams. What if Koreans want to start moving to the US and participate? There's going to be far more teams than the league has room for, especially if players start forming lots of small 5 man teams.
|
I really wonder why they just didn't have a few open seasons just like GSL, to then settle on those 50 "Code S" players, instead of this team limitations bullcrap. We still have no idea how they're gonna pick those 50 players, do we?
|
I'm confused about why teams are an issue at all in a competition where individual results are what matters.
It almost seems to me that these rules should be applied to a team league style setup if that's where NASL chooses to branch into in the future, as GSL has done recently.
If collusion or match fixing is their only real reason for a maximum of five members for each team, all that shows is that they have no trust for the players themselves. If that's the case, it's extremely disappointing to assume that the top players lack any integrity.
If they really want THE BEST 50 players competing in each season, and a team or two happen to have more than five players who can be considered in the top 50. . . well, shouldn't all those players be considered seriously for invites to the NASL? After all, aren't they widely considered the best? If a team made up entirely of top 50 level players can't enter their whole roster into the tournament, then it won't ever necessarily be the absolute best players competing. It's just totally backward logic, in my opinion.
I don't care that it's EGMachine(for example) who wins the whole damned tournament. I only care that it's Machine, the player, the guy himself. It isn't a team win, it's HIS win. Not that I don't support and love to follow specific teams, I do. The guy's team is just not my main focus when players are competing primarily for themselves.
Also, what about qualifiers? Now, I'm not sure how exactly NASL is selecting the top 50, but I'm hoping it's qualifiers. Isn't that a tried and true method for determining who will play each season? Fighting for spots, or at the very least seeding. Couldn't NASL just accept nominations on their website via the already established voting/nomination system? Following this they could hold a qualifier day or two, inviting X number of players who received a minimum quantity of votes after being nominated. Top 50 of qualifiers go on to play in NASL and we call it a day.
I'll say it one more time to wrap it up: From my perspective, teams should have nothing to do with an individual league such as the NASL appears to be. If there is going to be this amount of restriction and regulation based on teams, perhaps they should consider an NASTL format as well and apply team rules there.
|
On February 24 2011 14:14 ZombiesOMG wrote:
I'll say it one more time to wrap it up: From my perspective, teams should have nothing to do with an individual league such as the NASL appears to be. If there is going to be this amount of restriction and regulation based on teams, perhaps they should consider an NASTL format as well and apply team rules there.
I think this will fix almost everything.
Most importantly, it will stop people from calling NASAL.
|
How about this.
The NASL "people" select the Top 100 players with a higher person team limit (or no limit) and then have a qualifier for the top 50 divisional play. This allows all teams to have the possibility for all of their best players to get selected for the Top 100 man qualifier tourney while still give the NASL some control over the players that will be heading to the 50 man divisional play.
I really think this would solve almost all of the issues. Maybe I am missing something. Please let me know if I am.
|
Look at the most tried and tested and successful esport scene in the world - the Korean SCBW scene. They never had this rule and it was completely fine. In fact some of the greatest matches in porogaming history were teammate encounters.
I just had a feeling that this rule was created to target Liquid team specifically. To be honest even if 2 Liquid players can't play in, there's a good chance the other 5 would advance and fill the brackets with TLAF logos. 
|
First of all I totally agree with Tyler's point and I am sorry if I am reiterating some points but here are my two cents.
It strikes me that they are trying to build rules for an infrastructure that doesn't exist.
It assumes that there are 10+ reputable teams with solid sponsors and that is simply not the case and in the best case scenario likely won't be for another few years. Furthermore the logic about this fostering the growth of teams appears to be backwards as this would only foster the growth of other teams in a monopoly scenario, ie. 1-2 teams in NA with multiple major sponsors and literally all the good players in NA (and even in this scenario I am not convinced that at this early stage it would seriously foster development).
To draw a quick analogy this is kinda like trying to foster automotive infrastructure in a developing country:
What the NASL are doing is imposing speed limit laws and build stop lights.
The problem is there are only a handful of cars in the country and even fewer paved roads.
The roads and cars (physical infrastructure) must necessarily come before the legal infrastructure in this scenario and to impose the second before the first is in place will do nothing to expedite its growth.
Long story short with this analogy: the NASL should focus on building roads, not making laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
