I don't fully understand how teams are such an important issue to the NASL. I think there are 3 issues related to teams:
Collusion: Separating out teammates should reduce collusion. But so does having teammates play each other first. I think it's possible that that makes collusion impossible in divisional play, depending on how they score the groups. I believe Geoff (incontrol) said it'd still be possible, but I'm not sure how, so if Geoff/Xeris/whoever wants to make it clear, go ahead.
It seems to me that if some stars do some serious aligning, the best case scenario is a 3-way tie could be forced, but that would have to involve a sacrifice. Someone would have to lose to a non-teammate in order to force a 3 way tie between himself, his teammate, and this non-teammate, whereas if he won, he'd secure 1st for himself, 2nd for the non-teammate, and 3rd for his teammate. So yeah, he could collude and force a re-game, but it's not creating a better situation for himself and his teammate. What's the point of it? I don't consider that a situation where collusion is possible.
But even this could be avoided if you didn't have every match mapped out from day 1. Announce the matchups 6 days in advance. It's plenty of time for both the fans and the players. By picking the order that games are played in as the competition progresses, you can completely avoid the possibility for collusion.
Diversity:You want to have a wide variety of teams participating so that this diversity can enhance story lines and the drama of the competition.
First, team kill matches have drama and a good story line. If you put all the team kill matches in the first rounds to prevent collusion, you can even focus on the first rounds being unofficially known as the team kill rounds, or whatever clever way you want to hype it up. It'd be something interesting to watch when there's absolutely 0 drama going on about who is going to qualify for the finals because it's too early to tell. Teammate matches are sometimes very interesting gameplay-wise since they're practice partners. It's just literally not possible to have a unique story behind every match that is played and so adding in these team kill story lines actually improves the diversity.
Second, there are more ways to go all affirmative action on us if you really wanted to. Why do I see Xeris adamantly proclaiming in bold that there is no limit on the number of Europeans and Koreans being invited, saying that the most important thing is having the 50 best players? What's so much worse about having 10 TL players than having 10 Koreans (assuming skill level is equal)? I just don't get the obsession on team here. It's the one thing more important than having the best players but, in this respect, it's completely unsubstantiated as far as I've understood so far.
Accountability:You require players to be on a sponsored team because this makes them more accountable.
Well first I gotta say that I see a bit of inconsistency between this rule and the 5 players per team rule. Obviously a well known powerhosue team that's hugely sponsored team with a nice web site and exposure everywhere is going to have way more accountability than the ragtag group of "pretty good" players who haven't found a home yet that scrape together a team just good enough to meet NASL's definition of a sponsored team so that they can apply.
But that's exactly what you guys want. You want those random dudes that have had no real success so far, or at least not enough success to get recruited by any of the really good teams, to make a team and try to make it work. Or you want these unsuccessful teams or team managers who can't raise enough money to offer competitive contracts to recruit players to just be handed this bargaining chip of a slot for the NASL so that they can get these players. Then the players have a ridiculous choice between a better contract as the 6th best player with a good and reliable team or a worse contract as the top 5 best player on a worse team and also a chance for a spot in the NASL. But hey this is all for the players right?
Whoa that got off topic. Accountability. The $250 isn't enough? I imagine you looked at Naniwa and at the GCPL and pretty much the entire history of SC outside of Korea and knew you needed something more than being on a team. So you did something more and that's great. So why still the team requirement? For layers of accountability? Ok, maybe if player-team contracts had clauses like "if you don't act like a professional while representing us, then you receive this penalty" then yeah. I imagine some such clauses are in some existing player contracts. But not all. Even so, when a player does something dumb and it's not bad enough to get him kicked off his team, the team's job is to support the player and do damage control. Honestly I'd say that the guy who is on a well known team that will support his decisions and forgive his mistakes is able to get away with waaaaaayyy more than the random dude who has no one invested in his reputation, no one doing damage control for him, no one giving him a platform to explain his side of things or apologize, no important pillars in the community to either say "I agree with what he did" or "he made a mistake but he's a good guy and we still support him." God I would love to see what TLO could get away with haha.
And I can see how someone will think my first and third paragraphs are contradictory but they're not. The first is explaining how bad teams don't have accountability and the third is explaining how good teams don't have accountability either.
--------
So where I'm at now is just this... the collusion problem seems to not be a problem at all. The diversity thing is inconsistent, targeting only teams, with no explanation for that, and in fact it seems that having some powerhouse teams in the community actually adds to diversity in its own way. The accountability thing doesn't seem to work for the bad teams and for the good ones it depends on the content of the player-team contracts, which I think are not helping you at all at the moment, so your explanation doesn't apply to the current state of affairs, and you have no control over that. Helping out unsuccessful teams by giving them the "NASL slot" bargaining chip doesn't actually help teams at all unless it makes a significant difference in their ability to get sponsors. In the current state of affairs, it absolutely does not make a significant difference. But this bargaining chip hurts the players by drawing them away from tried-and-true good teams that offer the most stability. In other words, this rule is good only if there are a lot of good and stable teams out there ready to give good homes to players. There aren't. So it's actually harmful. Again, you have no control over this. If you were doing something to help teams AND doing this rule, it might be tolerable.
NoNy's logic>>>World . End of story. Next point. 5/5 ezpz.
Edit:Holy snowball batman. 7 pages of posts in 15 mins?! I think that while, in theory, there is no refuting Tylers logic, in practice, this is actually quite a niggly, minor issue. It also quite likely that they will change the rules after Season 1 kicks off and they have the time to self-evaluate. Stuff like a team limit can actually be waived very easily.
So while I actually hope the selection happens thru a qualifier system like GSL Season 1,2 and 3 and that they remove the team limit like NoNy said, I'm also fine with them going ahead with Season 1 in the way they see fit and changing stuff later with 20/20 hindsight.
Also, those saying that they dont want NA E-sport to get off to a bad start and all that can help sometimes by JLIG. Their system needs to stay the way they see fit and sometimes changing their rules to the whims of people too easily may be counterproductive to their legit image down the line.
Precedent is a very powerful thing and care shud be taken when doing it.
Remember MLGs adamant stance on map-pick rules(poor NoNy!). They got a shit-ton of flak for that but in the end evryone knew that they ran a LEGIT torney.
I think the issue is that larger teams such as oGs would have an issue bringing only 5 players from the team. I think the team concept is fine, but allowing only 5 just seems arbitrary.
Let teams figure out their own finances -- if they can send more, then there shouldn't be an issue with that.
I too find the player restriction to be pointless. Why should we force teams not to field their entire line up? It is better for entertainment value if we can have more power house players, and it certainly adds prestige to a tournament to have all the best players in the world present.
Haha, I knew you wouldn't be able to let it down since SOTG.
To be honest, I don't understand the whole setup even with your explanation, though you get a star for effort. However, I will dash my opinion on snippets of your topic:
First, team kill matches have drama and a good story line. If you put all the team kill matches in the first rounds to prevent collusion, you can even focus on the first rounds being unofficially known as the team kill rounds, or whatever clever way you want to hype it up
I entirely agree. What was that story where Sean and his brother, Tasteless, practiced together for this tournament for months on end and in the end, had to vs. each other in the first round of a very important tournament? That's fucking gold man, that's some serious, serious dramatic story-telling! I can help but agree that although teams will hate being pitted against one another, it creates tension, discussions and huge anticipation. Gold for the NASL who would strive off of this and gold for the viewers who simple love eating this up.
Only the teams sever some losses, but it's just random and everyone has an equal chance of vs.ing a teammate especially if there's limited slots of team or players on a team.
________________
Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
To be honest, these are a lot of issues that don't seem that huge of an issue. Without anything actually starting, there seems to be a lot of disagreements without actually seeing how it all fans/pans/fairs out. It's not like these rules are set in stone and it's like there isn't any wiggle room.
I agree, the rule is telling teams to NOT have depth in their rosters. The best players possible should be invited, regardless of what teams they represent.
I don't see how the term "teams" even made it into an individual tournament. Teams aren't related to individual tournaments in any way, except that it's where the individual players probably gets most of their practice. Should two team mates hit each other in the tournament, the only thing that should pop into peoples' minds is "man, lotta mind games here!" (because they practice together etc). You can speculate as much as you want whether they decide who should win, but it will all be in vain since it's a god damn individual tournament with no focus on team performance. Should anything be done to prevent such thought I think it should be to design the tournament in a way that there's no way a team could ever benefit from chosing who they think has the best chances of winning the tournament. Tyler gave a good example of how this could work. The general philosophy of the tournament seems like it should appeal lower end teams and for them to get their spot. However, I think an individual tournament should only determine who's the best individual player in THAT tournament regardless of what team that player is on. The tournament shouldn't restrict teams in any way. Especially not in such a way that potential gosus won't get their chance in the lime light.
On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
I agree with the points addressed here. I also wondered how this would work for larger teams, imagine if you have a very large team of amazing players, then not all of those amazing players could play and would be forced to quit said amazing team and join lesser teams in order to compete in NASL. That seems more like a penalty for having a large amazing team to me. (and kind of helps out individuals who happen to be in teams with not so many amazing players... hmmm makes you think doesn't it?)
Basically, is this system set up to bring forth the best, as in GSL; or, is it set up to bring forth certain people of influence.
On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
I'll agree that the idea of someone needs to be on a team in order to compete is silly. It's counter-productive for people who want to get into the professional-scene and it kind of portrays NASL as an elite league moreso than a convenient one for many North-American players. With the 250$ refundable tax, I agree that the need of being on a team is only showing little faith in the willingness of lone aspiring players. Am I making sense here or what?
I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa?
I kind of see the point he's making. This is an individual league, and the individual is the one making the money, not the team. This just seems like punishing people who are on good teams. Which may in turn make it harder for good teams to recruit new players.
I definitely understand where NASL is coming from with the limit on players per team, but I have to say that Tyler makes some VERY compelling points.
On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
Couldn't agree more. I find team clauses should only relate to team leagues, if they want to make something like the Proleague from BW, then sure, otherwise, it's called an INDIVIDUAL league for a reason.
On February 24 2011 06:15 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Diversity:team kill matches have drama and a good story line. If you put all the team kill matches in the first rounds to prevent collusion, you can even focus on the first rounds being unofficially known as the team kill rounds, or whatever clever way you want to hype it up. It'd be something interesting to watch when there's absolutely 0 drama going on about who is going to qualify for the finals because it's too early to tell. Teammate matches are sometimes very interesting gameplay-wise since they're practice partners. It's just literally not possible to have a unique story behind every match that is played and so adding in these team kill story lines actually improves the diversity.
Thank you Tyler. I've written out almost exactly your post twice, but decided not to post it because I didn't want to complain about something so obviously good for the community. My biggest concern with the tournament is that it seems to be overregulated. Obviously the organizers do not want things to go wrong, but adding rules that were never been used in previous tournaments introduces artifical limitations without providing much (if any) benefit. Just to add some points to yours:
First, the "players on teams are less likely to break rules" is pure pop psychology. If you can show me research supporting this then I'll take back my words, but I really doubt that. I mean, I can understand the roundabout logic: Because people are on a team, it shows that they are disciplined and mannered, and as such they should be those things in a tournament. However, the logic is tenuous at best, because player skill is a way larger determinant of being on a team than being mannered. Links as weak as these tend to have no significant effect.
To add to this, Xeris went on to say that teams are more likely to be able to sponsor their players. While true, this makes the money penalty more severe for players outside of teams since they will be losing their own money. As such, unsponsored players have a bigger incentive to follow the rules. Also, it's not as if not being sponsored will stop a player from flying out for the final 16. I mean, who wouldn't pay $500 for a 1/16 chance to make $100,000? In the extremely rare case that this happens, the tournament has ample replacements available from the group ladders. Money is the least likely reason for players to withdraw from the tournament, and the other reasons (like illness) are the same for players on teams and without teams.
Also, diversity should not be a problem for a tournament like this, especially considering that the organizers have the final say about which players get invited. The GSL has had great diversity in its participating teams even though teams like oGs are supposed to have 20+ members. In the international scene, few teams have more than 10 members, and almost no team has 5+ members that should feasibly be invited. Allowing teams to have more than 5 players will at most affect 5 spots out of the 50, which is nothing. Limiting the teams does nothing but frustrate the fans, annoy the top teams, and exclude top players. Like I said, if the organizers have the final say with the invites there is absolutely no reason to include such an artificial limitation.
All in all, I hope that the organizers take the feedback from the community seriously. We keep hearing that nothing has been finalized, so there's no reason to stick with rules like these (unless the organizers are not providing us with the real motivations for these rules). In both the previous TSLs, TL had to make changes due to community input, and that was after official statements had been released. At the time, I remember the community appreciating the fact that TL was willing to accept when it had made a mistake and change it. I hope the NASL is willing to do the same.
On February 24 2011 06:43 Torte de Lini wrote: I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa?
You'd have to explain a little more about how it's like players sitting on the bench in a baseball match. The game of baseball requires only so many players, but teams are allowed to have more for substitutions, so some guys sit on the bench. I'm not sure how the concept of substituting in tired/injured players is relevant at all to SC2/NASL. If the guy on the bench is equally skilled, but has different strengths and weaknesses, then that gets into your next point. Team management strategy. But honestly I think that should be left to team leagues. While your example is somewhat interesting, it's just very minimally interesting tbh. When management decisions are made for team leagues, they're 10x more interesting and they constantly matter. Would you really be so interested in TL making the decision of what 5 players it's going to enter? Is it worth having some lesser skilled, relatively unknown player in the tournament instead of a 6th TL guy?
I feel the big problem with this 5 people from 10 teams ruling is that hurts larger, well known teams that are established and people like. at the same time, it rewards the people who barely manage to recruit 5 good players. obviously you don't wanna kick the lesser known teams down so they can't ever do anything, but a bigger problem is to kick team liquid, or even a well known player whose a great guy, and whose done a lot for foreigner esports down and be like "well leave your sponsor who you're loyal to and has treated you well for years and join some team that wont benefit you at all except for your nasl spot."
I understand the pros of having the team slots, especially from the casual spectator point of view, you can cheer and root and get to know your favourite teams. but why not have something like 3 players seeded for each team, and have the rest of spots from a single, or a series of qualifier tournaments, and if 6 liquid guys gets in, make them play eachother right away.
After listening to SOTG and reading your post, I think your best argument against the 5 players per team rule is the thin amount of sponsors available in the west for current esports teams. It doesn't really make sense to force a larger amount of teams for the NASL when currently there are a small amount of actually sponsored teams playing. Doesn't root gaming still not have an actual sponsor? Where's the motivation for a smaller team to obtain a legitimate sponsor when the current sponsors are all backing EG? Ideally, as esports grows and becomes more profitable it'd obviously pull more companies to sponsor teams, but as it is the current sponsor market for western esports teams is thin, and I don't think it'll get any bigger by forcing a larger amount of teams in the NASL.
It puzzles me when I heard Russel speak last night about having some sort of balance and then also saying he wasn't even sure that all teams would have five NASL-caliber players that could play. Wouldn't it balance out the league to disregard the limit considering the majority of teams aren't going to have the same player-base as EG or Liquid? I don't really buy the collusion argument either, as it could and probably would happen even if the players weren't on a team.
As far as requiring players on a team, while I understand this allows for more legitimate teams to pop up, I don't really understand this either. On SOTG Russel used the argument that a player in the NBA has to be on a team to play, but this isn't basketball. These are one on one matches that don't require the coordination in each individual game that other sports do. Teams definitely give the players an edge, but if they're encouraging player stories, what's a better player story than a no-name player entering the league, doing amazingly well for a player not on a team and then after his performance is adopted onto a team? This is exactly what happened last year with the GSL with LittleBoy. He surprised viewers with his performance and ended up being added to oGs' roster. Those kinds of stories are more exciting than seeing people just add themselves to a team in order to be considered at all.
I realize they want accountability, but as you stated doesn't the $250 refundable fee already serve that purpose?
On February 24 2011 06:43 Torte de Lini wrote: I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa?
You'd have to explain a little more about how it's like players sitting on the bench in a baseball match. The game of baseball requires only so many players, but teams are allowed to have more for substitutions, so some guys sit on the bench. I'm not sure how the concept of substituting in tired/injured players is relevant at all to SC2/NASL. If the guy on the bench is equally skilled, but has different strengths and weaknesses, then that gets into your next point. Team management strategy. But honestly I think that should be left to team leagues. While your example is somewhat interesting, it's just very minimally interesting tbh. When management decisions are made for team leagues, they're 10x more interesting and they constantly matter. Would you really be so interested in TL making the decision of what 5 players it's going to enter? Is it worth having some lesser skilled, relatively unknown player in the tournament instead of a 6th TL guy?
Mm... I think you snagged an idea there. Are there any forms of substitution? I think that'd be pretty awesome! Could create a little suspense and a little bit of team strategy.
With no limitations, don't you think those with more players have more chances of winning and raking in more potential sponsors? This also goes against the views of people having no teams and going in alone. Then again, more sponsors means more players which may mean increased likelihood of winning (am I thinking too far?)
It just seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too.
As for team management decisions and my perception, personally I find it thrilling, I may be alone, maybe not.
Basing a tournament on teams that isn't a direct team league is incredibly broken. For one, not all teams are equal. Let's be honest here: Mouz, Liquid, and Dignitas are far better than VT, NrG, and vVv. So why should the better teams be limited down in the same way? On top of that, what about good players who aren't on teams? Whitera is better than 90% of so-called pros yet he isn't allowed to participate?
This just makes NASL a worthless tournament that doesn't even attempt to show the best players against eachother.
User was warned for this post. Don't make extreme statements such as "worthless" over the disagreement of a rule.
EDIT: Okay, so what I said was misconstrued so I'll reiterate it again in a more understandable fashion. I believe in the idea that tournaments are supposed to show who the best players are, which should be their ultimate goal. Allowing people to get easier paths in or barring top players in favor of lesser players makes a tournament "worthless" in terms of attaining that goal. It just comes down to what you look for in the winner of a major NA tourney -- the best player, or the best player who was allowed to compete due to unfortunately planned out rules.
On February 24 2011 06:54 lovelyrose wrote: I feel the big problem with this 5 people from 10 teams ruling is that hurts larger, well known teams that are established and people like. at the same time, it rewards the people who barely manage to recruit 5 good players. obviously you don't wanna kick the lesser known teams down so they can't ever do anything, but a bigger problem is to kick team liquid, or even a well known player whose a great guy, and whose done a lot for foreigner esports down and be like "well leave your sponsor who you're loyal to and has treated you well for years and join some team that wont benefit you at all except for your nasl spot."
I understand the pros of having the team slots, especially from the casual spectator point of view, you can cheer and root and get to know your favourite teams. but why not have something like 3 players seeded for each team, and have the rest of spots from a single, or a series of qualifier tournaments, and if 6 liquid guys gets in, make them play eachother right away.
Exactly my point! Imagine if the 10th best player on one team would absolutely dominate the best player from another team. Sure, you will have amazing people in the tournaments; however, you will also have some pretty terrible games where one guy gets completely destroyed. Then why are we watching this instead of GSL where only the best of the best play?
On February 24 2011 06:58 hmunkey wrote: Basing a tournament on teams that isn't a direct team league is incredibly broken. For one, not all teams are equal. Let's be honest here: Mouz, Liquid, and Dignitas are far better than VT, NrG, and vVv. So why should the better teams be limited down in the same way? On top of that, what about good players who aren't on teams? Whitera is better than 90% of so-called pros yet he isn't allowed to participate?
This just makes NASL a worthless tournament that doesn't even attempt to show the best players against eachother.
Disagree entirely and you're exaggerating in order to call for disagreement and confrontation.
NASL worthless? Way to be ignorant and ignore everything about the NASL over relatively minor details.
On February 24 2011 06:48 Daigomi wrote:[...] To add to this, Xeris went on to say that teams are more likely to be able to sponsor their players. While true, this makes the money penalty more severe for players outside of teams since they will be losing their own money. As such, unsponsored players have a bigger incentive to follow the rules. Also, it's not as if not being sponsored will stop a player from flying out for the final 16. I mean, who wouldn't pay $500 for a 1/16 chance to make $100,000? In the extremely rare case that this happens, the tournament has ample replacements available from the group ladders. Money is the least likely reason for players to withdraw from the tournament, and the other reasons (like illness) are the same for players on teams and without teams.[...]
plus a player that makes it into the final 16 of NASL would most likely get a contract within a few seconds anyway.
On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
I'll agree that the idea of someone needs to be on a team in order to compete is silly. It's counter-productive for people who want to get into the professional-scene and it kind of portrays NASL as an elite league moreso than a convenient one for many North-American players. With the 250$ refundable tax, I agree that the need of being on a team is only showing little faith in the willingness of lone aspiring players. Am I making sense here or what?
I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa?
Why should there be any team strategy? It's not Proleague its a totally individual league with people trying to win prizes for themselves and no one else.
The big teams have the best players. By introducing the rule on five players per team you are ensuring that some of the best players in the world are locked out of the tournament.
I'm curious though, what would happen if some team actually did do what Tyler jokingly proposed on SoTG, in other words - form an unofficial second team or even an official one and apply for the competition. Would NASL turn them down, and on what grounds?
And if they're not turned down, you would still get the same issues as if players were literally on the same team, the only difference would be that Gas`TLO would play against Liquid`Tyler, instead of both players having the same tag.
The bottom line is, teams shouldn't matter as a category in an individual league. Let the best players compete, that's the whole point of an individual starleague tournament.
Tyler, this post was necessary and I'm glad a highly respected player as yourself is bringing it to the table.
Now, on the issue of limiting to 5 players per team is something that doesnt feel reasonable. This concept is punishing the top tiered teams, which doesnt help sc2 as a whole. The top teams do more to improve a players skill, and having only 5 players would make less emphasis on a stronger/secure team. If there has to be a cap, to prevent a team turning into the NY Yankees, then 10 would be a reasonable cap that most people wouldnt debate.
I think the concept of teamkills is overrated, and only should be minimized, not prevented. I know teammates hate playing each other, but I dont think any of them believe that playing each other is a end all situation.
NASL is going to be epic nonetheless, and I feel like with community support we can create the ultimate sc2 league.
On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
I'll agree that the idea of someone needs to be on a team in order to compete is silly. It's counter-productive for people who want to get into the professional-scene and it kind of portrays NASL as an elite league moreso than a convenient one for many North-American players. With the 250$ refundable tax, I agree that the need of being on a team is only showing little faith in the willingness of lone aspiring players. Am I making sense here or what?
I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa?
Why should there be any team strategy? It's not Proleague its a totally individual league with people trying to win prizes for themselves and no one else.
So all top players LOVE eliminating their team mates? Sounds completely reasonable. If you're not on a team.
On February 24 2011 07:04 Motion wrote: Only five players per Team is absolutely okay, plz don't make a cow!
- Fair for everyone
- Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles...
- Interesting Player Transfers, cause a Clan could only hold 5 Starplayers. ( At least interesting for the Viewers )
- But the major point is: Less Team tactics
Forcing people to leave a team because of this tournament isn't something good. It's not fair for everyone cause if you're the sixth best player in a team you don't even have the chance to compete.
On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
I'll agree that the idea of someone needs to be on a team in order to compete is silly. It's counter-productive for people who want to get into the professional-scene and it kind of portrays NASL as an elite league moreso than a convenient one for many North-American players. With the 250$ refundable tax, I agree that the need of being on a team is only showing little faith in the willingness of lone aspiring players. Am I making sense here or what?
I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa?
Why should there be any team strategy? It's not Proleague its a totally individual league with people trying to win prizes for themselves and no one else.
So all top players LOVE eliminating their team mates? Sounds completely reasonable. If you're not on a team.
Why does it matter if they like it or not, it's been in the OSL and MSL for years. Teams in individual tournaments amounts to just a tag on their name, simple as that. So i don't know why there is rules related to it. Players should just be treated as individuals because that is the format of the competition.
On February 24 2011 07:06 Seronei wrote: Forcing people to leave a team because of this tournament isn't something good. It's not fair for everyone cause if you're the sixth best player in a team you don't even have the chance to compete.
It seems bad for Teams, but it is over all better for E-Sports.
The only thing everybody has to do is, accept this rule. After a while this creates a nice E-Sports Scene around it.
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying Tyler.
It strikes me as contradictory to say that you have to be on a team to be eligable to play in the tournament, but then go on to practically say your team is not allowed to have more than five players.
The basketball analogy Russel gave on State of the game made absolutely no sense either. To say that "you can't just strap on a jersey and go play in the NBA" is ridiculous. The proper analogy would "you can't just go play tennis". And, well, I don't even have to explain that...
On February 24 2011 07:04 Motion wrote: Only five players per Team is absolutely okay, plz don't make a cow!
- Fair for everyone
- Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles...
- Interesting Player Transfers, cause a Clan could only hold 5 Starplayers. ( At least interesting for the Viewers )
- But the major point is: Less Team tactics
What does Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles... mean? And why would you want player transfers, especially player transfers forced just to get the good players in the league.
also what does Only five players per Team is absolutely okay, plz don't make a cow! when you say make a cow do you mean make a fuss/big deal? If so what is the point of even posting if you say that?
On February 24 2011 07:06 Seronei wrote: Forcing people to leave a team because of this tournament isn't something good. It's not fair for everyone cause if you're the sixth best player in a team you don't even have the chance to compete.
Yes it is bad right now, but not in the future!
You have to start living in the now, sure this would work in the "future" but the future is unforeseeable, and hell you just admitted it is bad right now so.... I mean if you've got a time machine I would love to go with you and just skip to the point where SC2 is huge and there are multiple US teams and an organization to control everything.
On February 24 2011 07:04 Motion wrote: Only five players per Team is absolutely okay, plz don't make a cow!
- Fair for everyone
- Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles...
- Interesting Player Transfers, cause a Clan could only hold 5 Starplayers. ( At least interesting for the Viewers )
- But the major point is: Less Team tactics
- How is it fair for everyone? It will almost certainly end up being unfair for at least some excellent players that won't be able to get a spot in their team. So they will not be able to compete in NASL with no fault of their own.
- This doesn't make sense to me. Team based playstyles? =/
- It won't be interesting at all, because other teams will not have the financial capacity to take on the 6th player of a really good team. You're basically saying you want to not only force players to leave their teams in order to compete (where they probably have friends and a nice practice environment), you're also forcing them to work under a worse contract.
- To be honest, I can live with team tactics much more easily than living with some top players not being able to play. How many oGs-TL players have had to knock each other out in every single GSL so far? Hyperdub played a ridiculous game against MC recently, but that didn't really take away from GSL as a tournament.
Simply playing devils advocate. I think what the organizers of the NASL might be afraid of is a few highly skilled teams "crowding out" the upper brackets. Team-kill matches do have drama and add storylines, that's true. The problem is that, as a hypothetical, lets say out of the final 8 people in the tournament 6 were all from one team. That directly kills a lot of the competitive edge and the excitement involved in the tournament as you are presented with a "foregone conclusion" so to speak that no matter what happens this team will win. Now having only 5 people from a team won't stop this from happening completely, we still might see a certain team just dominate and fill up all the seeding spots. But limiting it to 5 people per team makes it less likely that this will occur.
I'm indifferent to how many people per team are allowed in, I'm just trying to see it from the perspective of the organizers.
I actually understand the desire to have a "team" feeling to an individual league and in that sense you might want to involve the possibility of collusion. But the rule might as well be the "Liquid Rule" basically preventing liquid from picking up any other strong players and that's really hard to argue with.
I think it's pretty clear that teams have nothing to do with the league unless the league is guaranteeing teams certain amounts of spots (which it's not and it shouldn't) or players from a team are allowed to sub in for a match (which they aren't and they shouldn't).
It's also worth noting the arbitrary "team" distinction. The Starcraft community has a long history and it's certainly possible that two players not on the same team could be closer and more willing to do something to bring the league into disrespect than two players on the same team. I'm not implying anything about their likelihood of cheating, but Artosis and IdrA are closer than IdrA and Axslav even though IdrA and Axslav are both on EG.
I think the idea of having 2 players from the same team play early in pool play is more than good enough. If you're worried about "changing the schedule" it doesn't seem any more significant than guaranteeing separate divisions to prevent team-kills.
On February 24 2011 07:04 Motion wrote: Only five players per Team is absolutely okay, plz don't make a cow!
- Fair for everyone
- Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles...
- Interesting Player Transfers, cause a Clan could only hold 5 Starplayers. ( At least interesting for the Viewers )
- But the major point is: Less Team tactics
1. How is it fair for everyone when it only affects 1 or 2 teams? It's clearly biased against top teams. This includes EG, so I'm not saying they did it to spite TL, I just don't think they thought through the implications fully.
2. This is complete conjecture. Since your argument specifically states 1-2 years, we can look at BW as an example. Tempest, Stats, and Violet, all protoss from KTF, play completely different styles. iloveoov and Boxer played completely different styles. In SC2, TL has Huk, Nazgul, Tyler, and TLO playing protoss, and they all have very distinctive styles. A player's unique style will only be minimally affected by the team that he is in, and it's not as if taking the limit off would fill the tournament up with only two teams. The distribution might change from 15 teams to 16 teams, or something similar to that.
3. Are you seriously saying players jumping from team to team is good for the fans? Yes, it might provide drama for a few hours, just like the president having an affair with an intern would provide drama, but it's definitely not good for the scene if players are forced to leave their team just to participate in one tournament.
4. The only decent point, but as has been said, this can very easily be avoided. Players from the same teams can be scheduled to always play each other in the first half of the tournament, preventing any collusion. Since the ladder stages seem to be round robin, this should be easy to do.
On February 24 2011 07:06 Seronei wrote: Forcing people to leave a team because of this tournament isn't something good. It's not fair for everyone cause if you're the sixth best player in a team you don't even have the chance to compete.
It seems bad for Teams, but it is over all better for E-Sports.
The only thing everybody has to do is, accept this rule. After a while this creates a nice E-Sports Scene around it.
Yes it is bad right now, but not in the future!
Can you at least try to support your statements with some evidence?
On February 24 2011 07:12 Motion wrote: If your are the sixth best player you aren't able to compete in many other tournaments. You may not be invited or simply smashed in 1st round ...
So the sixth player has to become a better player ... wtf, where is the problem?
It's in the nature of e-sport that the better player will compete in more tournaments ...
This is simply not true. No individual league is preventing players from playing based on their team. If you're the sixth player in your team, that doesn't mean you're not better than the other players in the league. The sixth player in a top team is almost certainly stronger than the 3rd player in a midrange team, and the best player in many of the teams allowed to participate.
Why would it be worth a sponsor's time to only field 5 players at once?
The more players a sponsor gets into the tournament the better the chances someone from their team advances. 5 out of several hundred, regardless of how good they are, is quite a long shot for a team sponsor.
My main concern is that the guys running NASL take post like this in consideration and are willing to listen AND change their mindset if they do find themself doubting or even agreeing on topic. Far too often in esports or community vs creator we see a stubborn front that manifest in a defencive posture to not change whats set in stone.
I do agree with tyler that the team aspect in this case doesn't deal with the problems it was set out to do.
There's no reason for teams to be involved in an individual tournament. Either it's an individual tournament (which it is), or it's a team tournament (which it isn't). The 5 cap is especially ridiculous, given some teams have dozens of somewhat talented players (like the old WeRRa, I guess I can't come up with a better example at the moment), while others have a few spectacular players (props, Liquid).
Sure you can make arguments about excitement, giving people a chance, diversity, teamkills not being fun, whatever.
But at the end of the day, the tournament's goal should be to have the best players playing the best players, and anything else will just be less entertaining.
On February 24 2011 07:08 Turo wrote: Sort of a random point, but isn't starcraft more like tennis than baseball? Do you need to be on a team to play in the biggest tennis tournies?
Well i believe players from the same countries are practice partners and therefore the teams in comparison to SC2. Often they have to play each other even though they might be partners for 2v2, and it's no problem. Of course they don't like having to eliminate each other but that's the way it is, it's a singles tournament.
On sotg I didnt understand why they put in these rules in the first place. It seems to limit the amount of talent a team can put in to the league. It is NOT a teamleague, so why would you forbid teams to send as many players as they can (not: want to).
On February 24 2011 07:06 Seronei wrote: Forcing people to leave a team because of this tournament isn't something good. It's not fair for everyone cause if you're the sixth best player in a team you don't even have the chance to compete.
It seems bad for Teams, but it is over all better for E-Sports.
The only thing everybody has to do is, accept this rule. After a while this creates a nice E-Sports Scene around it.
Yes it is bad right now, but not in the future!
There is no reasoning to say that this rule would be better for E-Sports. The best way to improve E-Sports is higher quality teams, which gives the lower quality teams a benchmark to improve.
I would rather have 5-10 awesome teams, then 20-30 average teams.
On February 24 2011 07:06 Seronei wrote: Forcing people to leave a team because of this tournament isn't something good. It's not fair for everyone cause if you're the sixth best player in a team you don't even have the chance to compete.
It seems bad for Teams, but it is over all better for E-Sports.
The only thing everybody has to do is, accept this rule. After a while this creates a nice E-Sports Scene around it.
Yes it is bad right now, but not in the future!
So leaving a well established team that offers benefits to play for a random, lesser team is better for ESports? How is this possibly good for the players?
I think it is more evident that the organizers do not care about diversity as they set out to keep people out who do not have teams. To the point of the open tournament, it seems more of an after thought to make a even RO16. With an invitational league your are purposely limiting diversity as you know what you are getting into. In my opinion, these rules that have been set out were done so with the forethought that they would develop more "drama" though the production cycle. We will see how things work out, I just hope they have a good writer/producer that will be able to pull those things out of the video they shoot, we will see in April.
On February 24 2011 07:12 wonderwall wrote: The problem is that, as a hypothetical, lets say out of the final 8 people in the tournament 6 were all from one team. That directly kills a lot of the competitive edge and the excitement involved in the tournament as you are presented with a "foregone conclusion" so to speak that no matter what happens this team will win.
The teams aren't competing; the players are.
Individual matches between teammates at high brackets are incredibly exciting, just look at any MSL or OSL in recent history.
On February 24 2011 07:08 Turo wrote: Sort of a random point, but isn't starcraft more like tennis than baseball? Do you need to be on a team to play in the biggest tennis tournies?
Well i believe players from the same countries are practice partners and therefore the teams in comparison to SC2. Often they have to play each other even though they might be partners for 2v2, and it's no problem. Of course they don't like having to eliminate each other but that's the way it is, it's a singles tournament.
Exactly: this is an individual tournament, not a team tournament.
On February 24 2011 07:12 wonderwall wrote: Simply playing devils advocate. I think what the organizers of the NASL might be afraid of is a few highly skilled teams "crowding out" the upper brackets. Team-kill matches do have drama and add storylines, that's true. The problem is that, as a hypothetical, lets say out of the final 8 people in the tournament 6 were all from one team. That directly kills a lot of the competitive edge and the excitement involved in the tournament as you are presented with a "foregone conclusion" so to speak that no matter what happens this team will win.
But it's not a team league. It's an individual league. Teams don't "win".
If you had Huk vs TLO and Jinro vs Tyler semifinals, would it really be a tournament with no "competitive edge" and "excitement"? Because to me, that would be one hell of a tournament ending and I would be super hyped for it.
It's not like they all won just by being from a single team. Starcraft doesn't work like that. It's an inherently individual sport, not a team one.
On February 24 2011 07:12 wonderwall wrote: Simply playing devils advocate. I think what the organizers of the NASL might be afraid of is a few highly skilled teams "crowding out" the upper brackets. Team-kill matches do have drama and add storylines, that's true. The problem is that, as a hypothetical, lets say out of the final 8 people in the tournament 6 were all from one team. That directly kills a lot of the competitive edge and the excitement involved in the tournament as you are presented with a "foregone conclusion" so to speak that no matter what happens this team will win.
But it's not a team league. It's an individual league. Teams don't "win".
If you had Huk vs TLO and Jinro vs Tyler semifinals, would it really be a tournament with no "competitive edge" and "excitement"? Because to me, that would be one hell of a tournament ending and I would be super hyped for it.
It's not like they all won so it doesn't matter what happens or anything. Starcraft doesn't work like that. Ultimately, it's an inherently individual sport, not a team one.
It CAN be a team sport: See Shinhan Proleague.
Just in this case it's not.
The way it's run as a team sport is 5 1v1 matches, first team to 3 wins, more or less.
I don't understand people who claim "this is worse for teams but better for E-Sports." An individual league should be about the best possible players you can get playing against each other. Excluding players because of team rules in an individual league is beyond silly to me.
If they added a team aspect like Team Points where players accrue points for their teams and at the end of the season the team with the most points wins a prize then I could see some point in it.
On February 24 2011 07:12 wonderwall wrote: Simply playing devils advocate. I think what the organizers of the NASL might be afraid of is a few highly skilled teams "crowding out" the upper brackets. Team-kill matches do have drama and add storylines, that's true. The problem is that, as a hypothetical, lets say out of the final 8 people in the tournament 6 were all from one team. That directly kills a lot of the competitive edge and the excitement involved in the tournament as you are presented with a "foregone conclusion" so to speak that no matter what happens this team will win. Now having only 5 people from a team won't stop this from happening completely, we still might see a certain team just dominate and fill up all the seeding spots. But limiting it to 5 people per team makes it less likely that this will occur.
I'm indifferent to how many people per team are allowed in, I'm just trying to see it from the perspective of the organizers.
since this is an individual tournament, it is the player we're worried about who wins, not the team. And having multiple people on one team doesn't ensure who is going to win.
On February 24 2011 07:12 Motion wrote: If your are the sixth best player you aren't able to compete in many other tournaments. You may not be invited or simply smashed in 1st round ...
So the sixth player has to become a better player ... wtf, where is the problem?
It's in the nature of e-sport that the better player will compete in more tournaments ...
The problem arises when the 6th player on one team is better than the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, whatever player on another team, yet isn't allowed to compete simply because of the team he's on. So in this case, the better player isn't competing in more tournaments.
I think the basic problem is that we're used to the idea of either a completely team league (Proleague) or a completely individual league (Starleague).
The NASL is trying to get the best of both worlds. They're trying to provide a place for 10 teams to field a team of players and get publicity and sponsorships WHILE the actual prizes and publicity is centered around individuals and the final 16 bracket.
...So, one set of rules makes sense for one portion of the competition, but not the other..
If you had Huk vs TLO and Jinro vs Tyler semifinals, would it really be a tournament with no "competitive edge" and "excitement"
Something the NASL is going to try and sell is team rivalry and competition. While you might love that semifinal from a promoters prospective it might be less amicable.
On February 24 2011 07:12 wonderwall wrote: Simply playing devils advocate. I think what the organizers of the NASL might be afraid of is a few highly skilled teams "crowding out" the upper brackets. Team-kill matches do have drama and add storylines, that's true. The problem is that, as a hypothetical, lets say out of the final 8 people in the tournament 6 were all from one team. That directly kills a lot of the competitive edge and the excitement involved in the tournament as you are presented with a "foregone conclusion" so to speak that no matter what happens this team will win.
But it's not a team league. It's an individual league. Teams don't "win".
If you had Huk vs TLO and Jinro vs Tyler semifinals, would it really be a tournament with no "competitive edge" and "excitement"? Because to me, that would be one hell of a tournament ending and I would be super hyped for it.
It's not like they all won so it doesn't matter what happens or anything. Starcraft doesn't work like that. Ultimately, it's an inherently individual sport, not a team one.
It CAN be a team sport: See Shinhan Proleague.
Just in this case it's not.
The way it's run as a team sport is 5 1v1 matches, first team to 3 wins, more or less.
My point was that it's not a team sport in itself. The only instance where it was sort of a team sport was when they still had 2v2s in the format.
I mean sure teams are important, but ultimately Starcraft is a 1 on 1 game and in an actual game, it's every man for himself. All of the team-related stuff happens outside the actual game. A lot like Formula 1, for example.
On February 24 2011 07:08 Turo wrote: Sort of a random point, but isn't starcraft more like tennis than baseball? Do you need to be on a team to play in the biggest tennis tournies?
I think the most compelling point at the moment is that with a new game such as SC2, many talented players have not had the chance to break out onto the scene and get recognized and sponsored. Perhaps in the future it would be more reasonable when A-team and B-team quality players are more clearly separated, but at the moment there's just no way to justify leaving out that particular group of players.
If we didn't have the 5-max-people-per-team rule wouldn't the people who were selected into the NASL who weren't on teams be really attractive additions for teams looking for talent? The NASL is going to be huge and the players in it will get lots of valuable exposure. So the "we want people on teams" problem should sort itself out.
tl;dr: most NASL players without teams would probably get picked up by teams
If one of the 5 Players could not continuous his play in the league, caused of illness or other circumstances, then the Team can bring in the sixth player.
If you had Huk vs TLO and Jinro vs Tyler semifinals, would it really be a tournament with no "competitive edge" and "excitement"
Something the NASL is going to try and sell is team rivalry and competition. While you might love that semifinal from a promoters prospective it might be less amicable.
Are you kidding? It would give sponsors the incentive to get as many of the best players as possible, and therefore increase the sponsorship money involved. If any one sponsor is restricted to only fielding five players, you're reducing their incentive to sponsor players in general.
I do understand the Team analogy doesn't exactly fit when compared to a Baseball team by the ability to substitute players.
I look on it in a different light as well. What if the big teams from Korea wanted to branch out. Their teams roll a lot deeper then even TL or EG. Seeing as the Prize pools here are going to be big in the NASL as well. What is to stop them from stacking 12 guys into the mix as well. 3 big sponsored teams(36 players) that could in fact knock out smaller teams. Hypothetically wiping out whole brackets. I know this is a long shot or worse case scenario, but it could potentially happen. By keeping the numbers down to five this could stem the tide a little.
The Olympics have a lot of solo events but the country competes as a whole. They only send their best. If the team manager has to make a decision and only send his top 5 then the other person or persons must understand. If one of the players get knocked out early then next season the teams sends another.
On February 24 2011 07:19 Fzero wrote: I think the basic problem is that we're used to the idea of either a completely team league (Proleague) or a completely individual league (Starleague).
The NASL is trying to get the best of both worlds. They're trying to provide a place for 10 teams to field a team of players and get publicity and sponsorships WHILE the actual prizes and publicity is centered around individuals and the final 16 bracket.
...So, one set of rules makes sense for one portion of the competition, but not the other..
I don't think there's such a thing as a "best of both worlds" though.
Because never, in any part of this, do team-based tactics come into play. In fact, having better players on your team doesn't help you at all, except maybe to get invited.
The example's already been made, but again: If the choice was between a team of 10 players, all of which (this is a ridiculous example, but might apply for some Korean teams) have played in Code A or Code S of the GSL, or having only 5 of those players, but 5 players from another team, who has played in some NA clanwars and done decently, what's the superior option? In my opinion, it's having the 10 amazing players.
On February 24 2011 07:08 Turo wrote: Sort of a random point, but isn't starcraft more like tennis than baseball? Do you need to be on a team to play in the biggest tennis tournies?
I think the most compelling point at the moment is that with a new game such as SC2, many talented players have not had the chance to break out onto the scene and get recognized and sponsored. Perhaps in the future it would be more reasonable when A-team and B-team quality players are more clearly separated, but at the moment there's just no way to justify leaving out that particular group of players.
But this goes directly against making the tournament an invitation only tournament (1 qualification spot out of 50 does not count). I agree with you fully that there is a lot of undiscovered talent in SC2, but if their goal was to allow these players to play, then they should have had a way for them to qualify. Making the tournament an invite tournament guarantees that no undiscovered talent will participate. Preventing players without teams from participating does the same thing.
On February 24 2011 07:24 Justanx wrote: I do understand the Team analogy doesn't exactly fit when compared to a Baseball team by the ability to substitute players.
I look on it in a different light as well. What if the big teams from Korea wanted to branch out. Their teams roll a lot deeper then even TL or EG. Seeing as the Prize pools here are going to be big in the NASL as well. What is to stop them from stacking 12 guys into the mix as well. 3 big sponsored teams(36 players) that could in fact knock out smaller teams. Hypothetically wiping out whole brackets. I know this is a long shot or worse case scenario, but it could potentially happen. By keeping the numbers down to five this could stem the tide a little.
The Olympics have a lot of solo events but the country competes as a whole. They only send their best. If the team manager has to make a decision and only send his top 5 then the other person or persons must understand. If one of the players get knocked out early then next season the teams sends another.
The fact that the tournament is invite only will stop this. That's the thing, by making the tournament invite only, there's no need to have these arbitrary restrictions. They can simply choose five players per team if they feel like it.
At the same time, the situation you're describing would be good for esports. If a few teams dominate the tournaments, sponsors would be forced to invest more to get top players from these top teams, leading to an injection of funds into esports. The situation you're describing is very hypothetical, but if it were to occur, it should be good for esports. Either way, there is no need for such an aribtrary rule before this occurs.
If you had Huk vs TLO and Jinro vs Tyler semifinals, would it really be a tournament with no "competitive edge" and "excitement"
Something the NASL is going to try and sell is team rivalry and competition. While you might love that semifinal from a promoters prospective it might be less amicable.
Pretty sure those semifinals if broadcast on the same day would bring in a ridiculous amount of viewers to the stream, which is what matters for the people running the tournament.
The whole team thing has made it so that i can't really see a clear vision for what the NASL wants to become. It's like they're a team league but not a team league. They'll let in whoever wins the tournament play without a team but not White Ra etc.
I would just like it if they would define themselves a bit better. I could see them wanting to make it super team centric but then it wouldn't make much sense to have an open tournament or payout on an individual basis.
On February 24 2011 07:22 dredd276 wrote: If we didn't have the 5-max-people-per-team rule wouldn't the people who were selected into the NASL who weren't on teams be really attractive additions for teams looking for talent? The NASL is going to be huge and the players in it will get lots of valuable exposure. So the "we want people on teams" problem should sort itself out.
tl;dr: most NASL players without teams would probably get picked up by teams
What if a player is looking around for a good option? A few big names that have been without teams for prolonged periods of time in SC2: Boxer, Idra, Genius, Ganzi. This is absolutely not because they are not good enough but most likely they are just holding it off until they find the right team/deal. Also if being on Duckload constitutes as a team then basically any player can just find 1 sponsor and put it in front of his name.
a lot of people don't seem to understand why the use of teams is important, I think it's great in the sense of knowing who the average viewer should cheer for, or maybe not even average, but the guy in bronze league who hasnt ever been to tl, but heard about this awesome tournament, maybe he has 1 or 2 players he likes. it's similar to pro league.
I think what makes proleague so appealing for fans is getting involved in their teams, and the drama of one guy eliminating the others teammate so the other wants revenge for his friend. it's much harder to tell a story if you don't use teams, imagine the casual person trying to remember everything about 60 different people. not saying this is the 100% correct way of running it or not, but I feel this is what nasl is trying to achieve.
lets say the average viewer loves Jinro and team liquid is up against someone from EG. some guy's favourite player is Jinro, but he's long gone, but he knows Jinro is on team liquid, the viewer can still get into it because Ret is playing. I feel that's what they're trying to achieve with the team thing, although Im not sure.
they know even if the rules the way they are now, people from TL will still like the nasl. it's a great tournament, and it can only be better for esports to have it. in order to make this succeed to how they want, I'd imagine they need to appeal to more than the people from TL, and websites similar to TL. I just don't personally feel that the only way to get invited should be through teams, people such duckload ra do deserve a shot, as well as there being 6 people from TL who clearly deserve to be in nasl.
From a PR point of view it's horrible to only have sponsored players in the game. It's horrible for a solo league not to have the outsiders and dark horses. Especially since the NASL want to embrace the entire North America. In reality they only embrace the select few who have been picked up by teams that can contribute $1250 + eventual costs for the Grand Finals.
I'm inclined to think, as someone also noticed in the Q&A thread, that the team aspect is to make the handpicking of players easier. Hell, there are thousands of players who'd love to get a shot at the NASL, but there will never be a good way to pick the 50 attendants. Sure, we can all agree on about half of them (atleast if we only take NA players into account), but from then on it's a matter of personal taste. Do you like player X over player Y?
I can easily follow your line of thought and I feel like the exclusion of players not on teams are a bad thing, but I'm unable myself to come up with a good way to qualify players. Cups seems bad, invitations based on results just as bad and popularity contests are neither a good idea....
On February 24 2011 07:04 Motion wrote: Only five players per Team is absolutely okay, plz don't make a cow!
- Fair for everyone
- Diversity in the way of play-styles, after 1-2 years a Powerhouse will reach certain styles...
- Interesting Player Transfers, cause a Clan could only hold 5 Starplayers. ( At least interesting for the Viewers )
- But the major point is: Less Team tactics
How is it fair? It is the opposite of fair. People are being punished for being on a good team. That isn't fair at all. Far from it.
I want to see the best possible tournament. By restricting some of the top players form being in the tournament so that lesser players on lesser teams can play is just absurd to me as a fan. Why would any tournament want lesser talent when they could have top talent? There will be more hype behind games and leagues with top players playing in them then if you have "tier 2 progamers" participating. Imagine if GOM told ogs they could only allow 5 of their players to play in the next GSL. That would just be silly.
Its a starleague so shouldn't the focus be on the individual stars\players rather than teams? Why not just have the players play qualifiers ? This way the top players will get in for sure, and can reduce drama or whatever. Then if they want to give slots to players, they can seed the top4 or something. Thetefore, skill will be the main factor in grabbing top players and teams will not be limiting who can play. And this way top players will get recognized and I think that is the goal of having theNASL right? To promote esports and their player.
Have not read the entire thread, short as it is, so sorry if this has been kinda brought up.
Just wanted to remark though, that the GSL march preview from TL included a review and ranking of the teams based on how they're doing. I actually loved that part, seeing how OGS and TSL were maybe starting to lose some steam, while others like IM and ST were on the rise, and all that good jazz. Now, in GSL they don't restrict the number of players per team. They let the teams battle it out, and the teams get some prestige out of being able to qualify more of their players.
The point i'm getting at, is that even if the GSL didn't try to constrict the number of players, there is still a good dynamic in there. For a while there were a few good teams, but then other teams are rising right now and stealing the thunder, so to speak. Feels to me like this is more skill-based, more rewarding too. And, if a team .is truly stronger, it should logically be more represented in the tournament. Similarly, it's less rewarding for the numbers like 45-50, to have people saying like " he's just there cuz Whitera doesnt have a team, or X liquid guy is the 6th wheel".
Here's the question that was going through my mind during the whole discussion on SotG. We've had these shows before where a bunch of different MLG rules were debated (pause rules, rematch rules, extended series, etc). Each time a main argument that was put forth (not least by inControL) was hey that's a rule founded in Halo but we have a 10 year old Broodwar community where this stuff is figured out and established. We should have rules that come from a starcraft background since that's what works for us.
So my question is, are there any rules comparable at all to this in the big Korean Broodwar Starleagues? I don't know everything about the OSL and MSL rules, but as far as I know, there are not. I seem to remember from time to time there would be a match where it was like oh this Samsung player can help out his teammate here by doing xyz, but I can't ever remember it being a huge deal or something that undermined the tournament. It was more just another element of drama and storyline than anything else. I've only followed the scene for about 5 years and not always super closely so maybe I've forgotten something more serious than Stork trying to get a lower seed at WCG or whatever.
It does seem kind of weird to bring in team rules into a straight 1v1 tournament. Just like teammates, it is plausible that any two friendly players could be in the same bracket, and thus someone could be tempted to throw games to help his friend. Preventing team cheating seems like an oddly specific condition that only eliminates a portion of the possible avenues for collusion, with a decent cost to some of the biggest teams in SC2.
My main issue with this rule is that it directly conflicts with the goal of having the top 50 players participating in the tournament. If a team can field 6+ people that can make a legitimate claim to being in the top 50, it best serves the tournament to let them do so.
On the other hand, this would lead to smaller teams receiving more exposure, and thus possibly able to get more sponsorships. I could see this as being an unspoken goal of this rule, as having more sponsored teams is probably better in the long run for eSports than having a few big teams.
On February 24 2011 07:22 dredd276 wrote: If we didn't have the 5-max-people-per-team rule wouldn't the people who were selected into the NASL who weren't on teams be really attractive additions for teams looking for talent? The NASL is going to be huge and the players in it will get lots of valuable exposure. So the "we want people on teams" problem should sort itself out.
tl;dr: most NASL players without teams would probably get picked up by teams
What if a player is looking around for a good option? A few big names that have been without teams for prolonged periods of time in SC2: Boxer, Idra, Genius, Ganzi. This is absolutely not because they are not good enough but most likely they are just holding it off until they find the right team/deal. Also if being on Duckload constitutes as a team then basically any player can just find 1 sponsor and put it in front of his name.
Thanks for reminding me that this means I have to worry about where WhiteRa's gonna end up. He's definitely not on a "team" as far as I can tell, but hopefully he's "team" enough for NASL if they don't change their system.
the only reasonable argument i can see is that it's worse for esports if there was a monopoly on talent created; ie if teamliquid bought every single root/dignitas/fnatic etc player and the NASL was 50% liquid players, meaning that only liquid gets any exposure and all the other teams are screwed. however, i don't see that as a realistic scenario and if exposure from NASL was really that important then other teams would be encouraged to hold onto their players.
Obviously, Tyler, the Great Explainer, lays it all out beautifully.
But I still agree with both sides when it comes to collusion. Collusion will happen anyway you dice it, but the most obvious form would be team based collusion. The shear fact that it will be obvious to even the lay-watcher is why the NASL rule exists. Other collusion would be difficult to prove, and thus not as much of a problem publicity wise for the NASL
/TROLL ON The only way to help solve this and keep all the great features of group play, is to have some sort of rule that punishes the player in later rounds for loosing in earlier rounds. Thus if they face that same opponent again they would be at a disadvantage and will therefore be incentivised to not throw games. Yes the only thing to save the NASL is extended series. /TROLL OFF
Seriously though, some sort of point system that seriously matters to players would hopefully help this. They would have to way collusion with possibly loss of advantage. My details are hazy but surely some sort of system exists or could be created.
Wouldn't it be more fair if better players got to play, stars if you may, instead of worse players from worse teams get to play just because there is a 5 player teamlimit?
On February 24 2011 07:26 PHedemark wrote: From a PR point of view it's horrible to only have sponsored players in the game. It's horrible for a solo league not to have the outsiders and dark horses. Especially since the NASL want to embrace the entire North America. In reality they only embrace the select few who have been picked up by teams that can contribute $1250 + eventual costs for the Grand Finals.
I'm inclined to think, as someone also noticed in the Q&A thread, that the team aspect is to make the handpicking of players easier. Hell, there are thousands of players who'd love to get a shot at the NASL, but there will never be a good way to pick the 50 attendants. Sure, we can all agree on about half of them (atleast if we only take NA players into account), but from then on it's a matter of personal taste. Do you like player X over player Y?
I can easily follow your line of thought and I feel like the exclusion of players not on teams are a bad thing, but I'm unable myself to come up with a good way to qualify players. Cups seems bad, invitations based on results just as bad and popularity contests are neither a good idea....
No, the money is really a minor investment for any team with a player good enough to send to the tournament, it's fully refundable and makes people accountable and I don't even like the max players rule.
I posted this in the Q&A thread as well, but i dont think i got a response
lets hypotheically pretend theres an NA team with super gosu players equlivant to
MC/MVP/Nestea/MKP/FD/Clide??
how do you as a team manger decide which 5 will play and who will have to try and qualify?? in a 1000 man tourny..
not only that with such a high prize (100k, 200k) the person who is excluded depending on their personality/ambition may opt to leave the team just for the chance to play.
I dont see how anyone can justify this rule if players end up leaving teams for in order compete. Maybe they wont leave the team for a 100k prize pool, but what if 2 years from now the prize pool is 500k? would you leave then?
If you had Huk vs TLO and Jinro vs Tyler semifinals, would it really be a tournament with no "competitive edge" and "excitement"
Something the NASL is going to try and sell is team rivalry and competition. While you might love that semifinal from a promoters prospective it might be less amicable.
The way I heard it, they want to promote it as an individual tournament that involves the best players (while at the same time having a rule that denies some of them the chance to compete). The only place where they mention teams is the awkward rule they added and the excuses they made for it.
And to be honest, no informed sponsor would shy away from having Huk, TLO, Jinro and Tyler (just an example) in the ro4. It would generate sick hype and interest.
Also, "team rivalry and competition" isn't that developed in the foreign scene at all, so it's hardly a good selling point. If they really wanted to promote that, they should have gone for a proleague format rather than an individual starleague one.
So basically Tyler made this whole argument so all the members of his team can qualify. There are a few reasons why I disagree. For one, I think team kill matches suck. I never enjoy them, and the drama in a team kill is no where near as good as the drama inherent in a division with members from a wide variety of teams, which promotes rivalry, and we get to see which team gets more players to the playoffs. This is infinitely better than a team kill round.
Second, I think the real drama here is who the teams will nominate to participate in the NASL. This motivates members of teams to practice and play better so their team is confident in sending them out. Maybe there will be in-team battles to see who makes it. I want to see the progress of inner-team ladders, where the top 5 are going into the NASL. That is way better drama than having a "team kill" round which honestly sounds terrible to me. On top of that, teams basically running the team kill scenarios on their own in order to choose the 5 players they're sending serves the same purpose, and provides far better drama. I can't wait to see the starting line up of teams, that's part of the story to me.
Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
Well said. Only one thing I would add, which is that the team requirement takes away the best thing about eSports; it's a meritocracy. If you are talented, dedicated, and work harder than the other guy you can become successful and well known. Sure for the GSL and the NASL you might have to play through a big bracket tournament to get an invite to a main event, but you really are only limited by the talent you have. Anything that takes away from that is a bad thing in my opinion.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: So basically Tyler made this whole argument so all the members of his team can qualify. There are a few reasons why I disagree. For one, I think team kill matches suck. I never enjoy them, and the drama in a team kill is no where near as good as the drama inherent in a division with members from a wide variety of teams, which promotes rivalry, and we get to see which team gets more players to the playoffs. This is infinitely better than a team kill round.
Second, I think the real drama here is who the teams will nominate to participate in the NASL. This motivates members of teams to practice and play better so their team is confident in sending them out. Maybe there will be in-team battles to see who makes it. I want to see the progress of inner-team ladders, where the top 5 are going into the NASL. That is way better drama than having a "team kill" round which honestly sounds terrible to me. On top of that, teams basically running the team kill scenarios on their own in order to choose the 5 players they're sending serves the same purpose, and provides far better drama. I can't wait to see the starting line up of teams, that's part of the story to me.
Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
You seriously want members of a team to compete AGAINST each other for the opportunity to play? That might work for some teams with a larger player pool, but some teams try to have their entire "team" aspect built on comaraderie, not competition.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: So basically Tyler made this whole argument so all the members of his team can qualify. There are a few reasons why I disagree. For one, I think team kill matches suck. I never enjoy them, and the drama in a team kill is no where near as good as the drama inherent in a division with members from a wide variety of teams, which promotes rivalry, and we get to see which team gets more players to the playoffs. This is infinitely better than a team kill round.
Tyler didn't just make this thread because he wan't all his team to qualify, he made this thread because he didn't agree with the rules. That's why he presented logical arguments instead of just stating "these rules suck because it excludes my teammates."
Allowing teams to have more than 5 players will not have only team kills, it would have maybe five games where players play against their teammates in a season, out of hundreds of games. If you don't like team kill matches, that's fine, you'll have hundreds of other games to watch. However, just the uncertainty that players could play their own teammates, and the rarity of the occurence, would probably make the teamkill matches very interesting.
Finally, "team kill" is a misnomer, since the groups will not be elimination groups. As such, you will not be knocked out of the tournament by a single game against a teammate.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
He brought it up as an example of a team kill, I followed the example. The logic stays the same though. Arguing that people who support EG would prefer to have one EG player excluded from the tournament rather than have two EG players play each other in a non-teamkill way is absurd.
The way I heard it, they want to promote it as an individual tournament that involves the best players (while at the same time having a rule that denies some of them the chance to compete). The only place where they mention teams is the awkward rule they added and the excuses they made for it.
There's a few things which indicate to me they want to sell a more storyline based product where the audience have a connection with the players. Everyone has to be part of a team to be eligible to enter. Players have to answer a series of pre-season questions about themselves. NASL will feature player interviews and so-forth.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
I listened to the SoTG last night. Although NASL brought up several points, I feel the first is the most important. I agree having team mates play each other in the first rounds does solve the problem, it does restrict matchups.
Looking at it from a numbers perspective... With 10 players per league, each league playing once a week, with each player playing every other player once...
So the best record would be 9-0 and a middle ground would be 5-4 or 4-5. With only 3/10 spots open to advance, you would need a record of 7-2 / 8-1 to advance in most cases. 6-3 could advance but would likely need a tie breaker match. In fact 7-2 is also likely to require a tie-breaker playoff.
This means for a player to have an opportunity to throw a match to help a teammate advance, they would have to be at least on track for 7-2 or more likely 8-1. AND the other player would need to be at least on track for 6-3 / 5-4.
This means you really have the first 2/3rds of the season in which to play these team games. Only the last 3 games need to be non-team kills.
There is another options of one teammate being around 5-4 / 6-3 and the other much lower (2-7) with no chance of qualifying. Here he could throw the game to get the teammate into the final. However in this case the better player would likely win anyway. The poorer player is also trying to retain their NASL slot, and you would still need to be 2/3rds through a season before any of this would matter.
This is of course assuming team mates are split between leagues with 2 per league (10 total per team). Currently I don't know of any teams that could field 10 players to this league. Of course the argument; what if you have 2 teams of 25 players each? That I would say is very unlikely. A 10 player cap would not be perfect but would be much more fair then a 5 player.
I think the 5 player rule is silly and is more likely to cause teams to break up rather then grow. In terms of team focused play, you can always make a team league!
Also team-kill drama is awesome. Tyler is of course right that the games can be very unique as each player knows the others style so well.
Like i said, it's not fair right now, but look neutral on it. In future there are 5 Players from a team in the 50 Players over all. So you should have 10 Teams with each 5 Players right ?
NO! there aren't 10 Teams with 5 Starplayers. Instead of having 8 Players from "Star-Team Y" and 7 Players from "Star-Team X" we have more diversity, more players from smaller teams, this is much more fair!
It will be like:
5 From Star Team Y, 5 From Star Team X, 3 From Good Team Z, 1 From Average Team W ...
Otherwise it will be
10 From Star Team Y, 8 From Star Team X, 5 From Good Team Z, 0 From Average Team W ...
It's more fair because you don't have to be like TL, even root has some sponsor issues... If we don't make this rule, then there will be only some Clans with large financial background and YOU as a new Player without the Big Star Team will have no chance to compete!
The sc1 scene already made a mistake like this. They restricted the players freedom and the teams freedom and it garnered a lot of hate. This is the kind of nonsense that becomes kespa. You absolutely cannot restrict freedoms like this and expect a better result.
gotta agree with Nony's original OP... I really want to hear a reason from NASL on why they are narrowing the entrance using "team base". Its true that narrowing the input is important to improve the games quality overall but using team is such a dumb way to deal with it. Unless they are afraid of combatex coming to LA to join NASL, i dont think there is any reason to use such a method.
You can build back story, hype, accountability and story lines without this rule. The worst case scenario removing the cap would be them accepting all of the sick-o players on a team over some (in this example) lower class players due to the invitational format.
If their goal is to have all of this back story, hype, accountability, what have you, this rule just seems arbitrary to all of those things imo. If anything, it takes away the hype from team kills and the inner team rivalries they could create with the match-ups they would have.
I actually think that stuff like teamkills add to the drama and story of the tournament. Otherwise i wholeheartedly agree with Tyler and from the very beginning i did not think the 5Player a team rule was a god idea, because it is a 1v1 Tournament where everybody plays to be the best.
You seriously want members of a team to compete AGAINST each other for the opportunity to play? That might work for some teams with a larger player pool, but some teams try to have their entire "team" aspect built on comaraderie, not competition.
Absolutely man, there has always been inner team ladders, an A team and a B team. That always existed, absolutely nothing wrong with that, and there's still camaraderie for sure.
ust to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except for the fact that they're not on the same team?
On February 24 2011 07:37 Motion wrote: Like i said, it's not fair right now, but look neutral on it. In future there are 5 Players from a team in the 50 Players over all. So you should have 10 Teams with each 5 Players right ?
NO! there aren't 10 Teams with 5 Starplayers. Instead of having 8 Players from "Star-Team Y" and 7 Players from "Star-Team X" we have more diversity, more players from smaller teams, this is much more fair!
It's more fair because you don't have to be like TL, even root has some sponsor issues... If we don't make this rule, then there will be only some Clans with large financial background and YOU as a new Player without the Big Star Team will have no chance to compete!
This in fact hampers the NEW PLAYERS because the only way a non-team player can compete is if he makes it through a 1000-man open tournament.
It is not at all the other way around.
And there's no reason to have shitty teams play--they don't seem to be discriminating on amount of sponsorship, merely they require sponsorship, which even I still don't agree with, but almost any team that has played decently in pay tournaments will have sponsorship, even if it's as small as getting a few free keyboards, that IS sponsorship.
EDIT: Obviously, receiving the keyboards not as a prize, but from a company in a sponsorship deal yadda yadda.
I think the main problem with this rule is that even if they do change the rule, it is an invite-only tourney, so If they really wanted to couldn't they just restrict 5 people per team anyways? (not saying that they would do that) I think that because this is a new league we should maybe just accept the rules for the first couple of seasons and see how it goes, after all they are just trying to evolve e-sports in NA.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: For one, I think team kill matches suck.
You're getting team kills even with this rule, the team kill is just happening before the matches occur. You're also limiting the any sort of acquisitions teams like TL, EG, or even root might bother with due to NASL limiting the amount of players they can send to NASL. That's killing the team members before they even have a chance to play!
I mean, even looking at the GSL in Korea, which has a greater amount of teams and a greater amount of players on legitimately sponsored teams you can see it doesn't seem to make much sense.
In just Code S, oGs has 8 players. Prime has 5. If you were to expand it to include Code A, ST, oGs, IM, Prime, ZeNEX, and TSL all are going to have more than five players on their teams. This kind of rule wouldn't work in Korea, where the environment for esports is bigger, the amount of sponsored teams is bigger, and the player skill is on average higher. How is it going to work in NA/EU? What would happen if Gretech told the Korean teams that they'd have to send only five players? It'd be a disaster.
5/5 -- I've had concerns since the beginning and it was first Nazgul and now Tyler who are hitting many of my biggest points of contention right on the head. Top notch work, guys.
I also have to agree with Tump quite a bit: are we running a "Pro" league or a "Star" league? You have things like GSL on one hand and GSTL on the other. Semi-combining the rules of the GSTL into the GSL takes some of the uniqueness away and ruins a big part of the concept. You shouldn't be ignoring people based on teams (or, on the other hand, only looking at them because of teams).
I've only had time to listen to a dozen minutes or so of the new SotG -- really excited to hear the discussion in it! ^_^
This rule fails for about every purpose it's in place. I'll give one example:
EXAMPLE 1:
The fear that players from the same team will cheat by purposely loosing a game to a teammate.
This can happen in divisions where we have two players from the same team. If you distribute the players from the same team among divisions you end up with as much as two players from the same team in the same division. The probability that you get more than two (a team has more that ten super good players) is ridiculously low; and even if it were to happen, you should allow all the players.. I mean that would be players to watch!
So we have two players from the same team. The idea that in ONE of NINE games, they will meet and one player is so confident and so far ahead (1) that he thinks is guaranteed to get out of the division is extremely unlikely. First they need to meet in the last games (2). And then be both willing to risk their image (3) and the image of the team (4) and the image of the sponsor (5) or have that team have such internal policy co ask the players to do that (6).
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5) or (1)(2)(6) We have a tight and improbable situation for the gain of a slightly better chance of MAKING IT OUT OF DIVISION INTO PLAYOFFS!
So the risk is huge, the gain is very small and it MAYBE gets you to play ONE round more for ONE season.
The league should want the best players in the world. By limiting your players to five per team, or that they must be part of an organization, cuts out your potential talent pool. Wholly ill-advised and shortsighted.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except for the fact that they're not on the same team?
He's drawing parallels between the idea that no one likes team kills, even if that team is "team foreigner". Still, team kills would be better than your favorite player not playing at all just because there is a chance of a team kill.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: For one, I think team kill matches suck.
You're getting team kills even with this rule, the team kill is just happening before the matches occur. You're also limiting the any sort of acquisitions teams like TL, EG, or even root might bother with due to NASL limiting the amount of players they can send to NASL. That's killing the team members before they even have a chance to play!
I mean, even looking at the GSL in Korea, which has a greater amount of teams and a greater amount of players on legitimately sponsored teams you can see it doesn't seem to make much sense.
In just Code S, oGs has 8 players. Prime has 5. If you were to expand it to include Code A, ST, oGs, IM, Prime, ZeNEX, and TSL all are going to have more than five players on their teams. This kind of rule wouldn't work in Korea, where the environment for esports is bigger, the amount of sponsored teams is bigger, and the player skill is on average higher. How is it going to work in NA/EU? What would happen if Gretech told the Korean teams that they'd have to send only five players? It'd be a disaster.
Yes that's what I'm saying! I like that way better. I want the teams to decide who they send. That's way more drama. Inner team ladders etc... are so much funner to see and less cringe worthy than seeing a group with 3 or 4 members from the same team. I can't wait to see the starting line up of teams, that's drama. Read my post man, I address this.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except for the fact that they're not on the same team?
Not on the same team? They're both white and both speak English, how is that not the same team? /troll
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: Second, I think the real drama here is who the teams will nominate to participate in the NASL. This motivates members of teams to practice and play better so their team is confident in sending them out. Maybe there will be in-team battles to see who makes it. I want to see the progress of inner-team ladders, where the top 5 are going into the NASL. That is way better drama than having a "team kill" round which honestly sounds terrible to me. On top of that, teams basically running the team kill scenarios on their own in order to choose the 5 players they're sending serves the same purpose, and provides far better drama. I can't wait to see the starting line up of teams, that's part of the story to me.
How is it way better drama?
- Outsiders (fans) won't even get to know or hear anything about it, teams will just come up with a list of names and everything that led to that will stay hidden from the public.
- It will create negative tension within a team. In a team-kill situations, at least both players are given a chance to compete, and the better Starcraft player will win. With NASL's rule, it's more like one or two members of the team are told "we think you suck, you're not getting in our 5" in one way or the other (we won't know why or how).
- In general, because of the 5 players per team limit, you shut off better players and give league spots to the worse players (from other teams). Why anyone would want this is beyond me.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
That situation is completely different. Mostly everybody on TL wants foreigners to be successful in Korea and support them unanimously. I myself supported Idra in the GSL, and it's VERY painful for me to support Idra in any way, but in the example you named, there's a higher cause.
There's no such thing at all in an entirely foreign-based league.
I agree with Tyler, I don't understand the team rule as well ... I think the strength of any tournament or league is having new players come from nothing being on a team means nothing ... don't even get me started about the Korean player limits.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
He brought it up as an example of a team kill, I followed the example. The logic stays the same though. Arguing that people who support EG would prefer to have one EG player excluded from the tournament rather than have two EG players play each other in a non-teamkill way is absurd.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: Second, I think the real drama here is who the teams will nominate to participate in the NASL. This motivates members of teams to practice and play better so their team is confident in sending them out. Maybe there will be in-team battles to see who makes it. I want to see the progress of inner-team ladders, where the top 5 are going into the NASL. That is way better drama than having a "team kill" round which honestly sounds terrible to me. On top of that, teams basically running the team kill scenarios on their own in order to choose the 5 players they're sending serves the same purpose, and provides far better drama. I can't wait to see the starting line up of teams, that's part of the story to me.
How is it way better drama?
- Outsiders (fans) won't even get to know or hear anything about it, teams will just come up with a list of names and everything that led to that will stay hidden from the public.
- It will create negative tension within a team. In a team-kill situations, at least both players are given a chance to compete, and the better Starcraft player will win. With NASL's rule, it's more like one or two members of the team are told "we think you suck, you're not getting in our 5" in one way or the other (we won't know why or how).
- In general, because of the 5 players per team limit, you shut off better players and give league spots to the worse players (from other teams). Why anyone would want this is beyond me.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
That situation is completely different. Mostly everybody on TL wants foreigners to be successful in Korea and support them unanimously. I myself supported Idra in the GSL, and it's VERY painful for me to support Idra in any way, but in the example you named, there's a higher cause.
There's no such thing at all in an entirely foreign-based league.
That's not the point, the point is we were supporting foreigners and they ended up in the same group, which sucked unanimously. It's the same if you support Team Liquid or Root and there's a group with 4 of them in there. It would be bad, and that's my opinion. I hate seeing my favorite teams play each other in the early rounds. And team ladders have always existed, I don't know if you followed BW but there has always been an A team and a B team. That's just part of competitive eSports. They are big boys, they can handle it.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
He brought it up as an example of a team kill, I followed the example. The logic stays the same though. Arguing that people who support EG would prefer to have one EG player excluded from the tournament rather than have two EG players play each other in a non-teamkill way is absurd.
If it was limited to 2 than you have an argument, but 5 players is enough to see most of your favorite players. If they don't make it to the starting lineup it means they weren't good enough to make it. Time for them to practice hard and make it to the A team, just like BW.
Well, let's see... We would need a definition of "team" first, because there's room for interpretation. Do you see Duckload as a "team", or are they just sponsoring White-Ra? Actually White-Ra isn't on what we would call a team, nevertheless he's ranked quite high in the uservote. I don't get this rule either, it would be good if there were teams with 30++ top players, but come on, most teams consist of 5-7 players.
This rule fails for about every purpose it's in place. I'll give one example:
EXAMPLE 2:
To all thinking this system is avoiding teamkills and doing a good this way. That's just silly.
1st. Teamkill is when two from the same team play and one is eliminated. Because we have multiple rounds per division this is not the case. One will just get one point more. 2nd. Not allowing more than five players is already a TEAMKILL. Because you kill (eliminate) at least one player.
I think the 5 per team thing is an idea that COULD be good for western esports in 6 months if it explodes and large companies see that the NASL has this huge number of viewers, hits and subscribers and a team can say 'yeah, we are a prt of that'........ but it doesn't at the moment and a lot of players are going to be put in a really crappy spot when they can give up an ok salary in a solid, stable, reliable and respected organisation and be the 6th-10th player on a roster and not play in the nasl or they can try get a contract with a team which is a lot less likely to pay a salary or as good as they had before for the sake of playing NASL...... not to mention that awkward moment in house when someone who gets told theyre in the few that didnt make it on a pro team who have more than 5 players if they feel they deserve i!
On February 24 2011 07:36 wonderwall wrote: There's a few things which indicate to me they want to sell a more storyline based product where the audience have a connection with the players. Everyone has to be part of a team to be eligible to enter. Players have to answer a series of pre-season questions about themselves. NASL will feature player interviews and so-forth..
Storyline based around the actual players, yes. That's why they want all the videos with personalities and stuff.
As for having to be part of a team to be eligible, that rule was explained on SoTG and has nothing to do with selling NASL as some sort of an improvised team league.
They simply want players who are reliable and professional rather than the latest ladder hero or weekly online cup hero whom nobody can vouch for. They want the player to have a tie with a team so that NASL people know who to turn to in case of any issues with the player.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: Second, I think the real drama here is who the teams will nominate to participate in the NASL. This motivates members of teams to practice and play better so their team is confident in sending them out. Maybe there will be in-team battles to see who makes it. I want to see the progress of inner-team ladders, where the top 5 are going into the NASL. That is way better drama than having a "team kill" round which honestly sounds terrible to me. On top of that, teams basically running the team kill scenarios on their own in order to choose the 5 players they're sending serves the same purpose, and provides far better drama. I can't wait to see the starting line up of teams, that's part of the story to me.
How is it way better drama?
- Outsiders (fans) won't even get to know or hear anything about it, teams will just come up with a list of names and everything that led to that will stay hidden from the public.
- It will create negative tension within a team. In a team-kill situations, at least both players are given a chance to compete, and the better Starcraft player will win. With NASL's rule, it's more like one or two members of the team are told "we think you suck, you're not getting in our 5" in one way or the other (we won't know why or how).
- In general, because of the 5 players per team limit, you shut off better players and give league spots to the worse players (from other teams). Why anyone would want this is beyond me.
On February 24 2011 07:32 Zim23 wrote: Just look at when the GSL released the groups for season 4, TL was so pissed when we saw two foreigners in the same group, because no one wants to see that shit. We want our favorite team to make it far. When they team kill each other it's not fun and leaves a sour taste in our collective mouths.
That situation is completely different. Mostly everybody on TL wants foreigners to be successful in Korea and support them unanimously. I myself supported Idra in the GSL, and it's VERY painful for me to support Idra in any way, but in the example you named, there's a higher cause.
There's no such thing at all in an entirely foreign-based league.
That's not the point, the point is we were supporting foreigners and they ended up in the same group, which sucked unanimously. It's the same if you support Team Liquid or Root and there's a group with 4 of them in there. It would be bad, and that's my opinion. I hate seeing my favorite teams play each other in the early rounds. And team ladders have always existed, I don't know if you followed BW but there has always been an A team and a B team. That's just part of competitive eSports. They are big boys, they can handle it.
I don't know if YOU followed BW, but in BW there was a team league, (Shinhan Proleague) and an individual league, actually, two (Ongamenet Starleague and MBCGame Starleague). At least for the major progamers.
One was based on team play, and yeah, they didn't use all the players all the time, but team strategies were important, and how well your teammates did affected your team's chance to win each match.
The other was an individual league, and teams had no effect on it, even being an "A-teamer" or a "B-teamer" had no major effect.
So your analogy is poor.
There was no pseudo team/individual mash-up league.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
He brought it up as an example of a team kill, I followed the example. The logic stays the same though. Arguing that people who support EG would prefer to have one EG player excluded from the tournament rather than have two EG players play each other in a non-teamkill way is absurd.
If it was limited to 2 than you have an argument, but 5 players is enough to see most of your favorite players. If they don't make it to the starting lineup it means they weren't good enough to make it. Time for them to practice hard and make it to the A team, just like BW.
Personally I don't see the problem with limiting it to 5 per team. Similar things happen all the time: WCG has only ever allowed three Koreans, going outside of esports, the Olympics only allow three per country in most things, if that (was watching some track cycling this weekend and it's kind of LOL that the UK has two sprinters with genuine medal chances but can only take one to 2012). So the sixth best guy on EG can't play? Big deal.
On February 24 2011 07:49 Talin wrote: They simply want players who are reliable and professional rather than the latest ladder hero or weekly online cup hero whom nobody can vouch for. They want the player to have a tie with a team so that NASL people know who to turn to in case of any issues with the player.
Aren't they already going to be held accountable due to the fact that they have that $250 refundable fee?
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
He brought it up as an example of a team kill, I followed the example. The logic stays the same though. Arguing that people who support EG would prefer to have one EG player excluded from the tournament rather than have two EG players play each other in a non-teamkill way is absurd.
If it was limited to 2 than you have an argument, but 5 players is enough to see most of your favorite players. If they don't make it to the starting lineup it means they weren't good enough to make it. Time for them to practice hard and make it to the A team, just like BW.
b-teamers aren't excluded from msl and osl.
Yes but people are saying having team rankings is bad because teams shouldn't compete within themselves (it's bad to say this team member is better than this one), and I'm saying that kind of thing has always been there.
The 5 player restriction is honestly the stupidest idea I've ever heard. All I wanna see is the 50 best player compete. Every Liquid members are good enough to be the ace on most teams, but 1 of them can't play in the NASL because of this illogical rule? Who came up with this idea anyway? Incontrol? Jealous much of Liquid's success? I really hope they came up with this idea from a rational and unbiased point of view. I seriously doubt it because it makes 0 sense.
I was listening to SOTG and Incontrol said that by limiting it to 5 players, it'll prevent some sort of collusion. Starting Esports in NA on the wrong foot? Stop being so negative! We want this league to represent a fun, professional game, represented by the BEST professional players with INTEGRITY. If a player really wanted to cheat, believe me he will find a way to cheat, no matter what kind of rules you put in. If that were to happen, just ban that guy from playing in the NASL in the future. Not being able to play in a $100k (if not more in the future) prize pool tournament is punishment enough don't you think? I know I'd twice before cheating, especially if NASL does become THE league in NA that everyone wants to play in.
Suggestion: Remove the stupid 5 member per team limit, and implement harsher penalties instead. For instance, like I said before, ban the player for like 5 seasons or more. Hell, ban the team from participating for the next 2-3 seasons if you find out that a teammember did give away a free win to another teammate.
Diversity argument: another stupid argument obviously. Fans want to see diversity of course. But you are inviting 50 unique players. How's that for diversity? I don't care what's the team tag beside their name, each one of the them are unique individuals with unique stories. Fans want to see the best players, period. Yesterday Russell said having 10-15 different teams will help esports grow. I really don't see how to be honest LOL there aren't enough sponsors to sponsor 10-15 teams, especially when the Esports industry in NA is so young. No companies are going to blindly sponsor a team. You need to grow the scene first and then maybe they'll see the potential in marketing a SC2 team. That won't happen when you dilute talent into 15 teams.
If the people behind NASL are smart, then they will remove the team restriction. Bring up the team argument when you make a real proleague happen alright? Don't say GCPL.
By the way, serious question here to NASL team, who came up with the team restriction idea? Suggestion: Hire a competent marketing guy
let me make it very clear with a very simple example:
Just imagine Hwaseung OZ comes new to the scene. Jaydong would have only one chance to play in NASL: Though the 1000man Tornament, well you all know this is random crap.
So with only 5 Players per Team, the Rookie Jaydong from the New Team Hwaseung OZ will have a better chance to compete in NASL. Just because more Teams means more diversity and easier qualification for new good team based players!
I know nothing about the BW scene, but wouldn't this create something like the A team and B team that the Korean BW teams had? If not, could I get a little explanation?
The one thing I'd argue for the player limit is that the NASL can serve as advertising for all these teams. A company could see all these players from 10+ teams and feel like they have an opportunity to get their name out. In contrast, it seemed like some seasons of the GSL only had players from 5 or so teams. Hell, at the time of the GSTL 39 of the 64 players from the previous GSL were on 5 teams. So limiting the number of players per team could arguably increase the number of companies that are supporting SC2.
Personally, I would rather increase the number of players/divisions in future seasons and always matching the limit of players per team with the number of divisions. I know that there will still be an arbitrary limit, but more would able to play in this tournament per team. I personally don't think intra-team battles are that great except for the "boy it sucks that they have to play each other" moment.
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
He brought it up as an example of a team kill, I followed the example. The logic stays the same though. Arguing that people who support EG would prefer to have one EG player excluded from the tournament rather than have two EG players play each other in a non-teamkill way is absurd.
If it was limited to 2 than you have an argument, but 5 players is enough to see most of your favorite players. If they don't make it to the starting lineup it means they weren't good enough to make it. Time for them to practice hard and make it to the A team, just like BW.
That's not relevant to my reply though. Your point was that teamkills suck, and you used the example of Idra and Jinro. I said that the limitation removes the "problem" of teamkills by excluding either Idra or Jinro from the start, a situation which is obviously worse.
What you make is a different argument, an argument that five players is enough for any team, and that any players not good enough should simply practice more. What happens if your sixth player is better than 80% of the players who enter the tournament though? That player is clearly being disadvantaged by being in a strong team. Saying a player who should qualify for the Final 16 should just "practice more", simply because he has an all star team with him is unreasonable.
In BW, "A team" only mattered in Team Leagues. Anyone could enter individual leagues on their own strength. Flash went to the quarterfinals of the OSL before he was on the A team of KTF, for example. If KTF could choose to send five players, do you think Flash would have played in that OSL? Players in individual leagues should not be disadvantaged for being in a strong team, and tournaments should not choose weaker players based on arbitrary limitations.
On February 24 2011 07:51 sixfour wrote: Personally I don't see the problem with limiting it to 5 per team. Similar things happen all the time: WCG has only ever allowed three Koreans, going outside of esports, the Olympics only allow three per country in most things, if that (was watching some track cycling this weekend and it's kind of LOL that the UK has two sprinters with genuine medal chances but can only take one to 2012). So the sixth best guy on EG can't play? Big deal.
Country != team none of your examples ever got anywhere near excluding people from the same teams in individual sports. If the olympics did something like that they would meet an incredible amount of resistance.
Traditionally (and for good reasons): Individual world championships/olympics: Limit people based on countries. Team sports/leagues: Limit people based on teams
Don't mix the two up, no other sport does. What the NASL is doing here I have never heard of before and examples of the olympics are absolutely inaccurate because the olympics is about countries (and thus limits it by that) and the NASL is not about teams, a team league is.
On February 24 2011 07:47 Zim23 wrote: That's not the point, the point is we were supporting foreigners and they ended up in the same group, which sucked unanimously. It's the same if you support Team Liquid or Root and there's a group with 4 of them in there. It would be bad, and that's my opinion. I hate seeing my favorite teams play each other in the early rounds.
But what I said is exactly the point. The GSL-foreigner analogy is superficial and does not actually relate well at all to the foreigner team scene. There are very few diehard TL or Root fans who are in it for the teams, rather than their favorite PLAYERS on teams. The kind of support similar to the support and desire for foreigners to do well in Korea doesn't exist.
On February 24 2011 07:47 Zim23 wrote: And team ladders have always existed, I don't know if you followed BW but there has always been an A team and a B team. That's just part of competitive eSports. They are big boys, they can handle it.
It's easy for you to say they can handle it. That's the worst part of competitive esports, and there is no need AT ALL to encourage it in western esports. At least not yet, and hopefully not ever.
Korean B teams were usually the source of most pro BW horror stories. Just ask Ret or Tyler how they had it (they spoke about it a lot in interviews as well), and a lot of Koreans had it way worse.
Besides, in the case of Korean B teams, most players on B teams are universally worse than players on ANY A team. That would not be the case if you block a TL player from taking part in NASL and invite a 5th VT player instead (no offense to VT, but let's be realistic here).
The whole NASL is a let down. I'll stick to watching GSL. The team rules are arbitrary and the voting system to get an invite is unsavory. I wish InControl the best of luck but honestly bud, I'll tune in to GSL and MLG because they are INDIVIDUAL LEAGUES that requires INDIVIDUAL SKILL and nothing more. Adding a TEAM requirements to an INDIVIDUAL LEAGUE is lame. Anyone should be able to get in. As for the back story stuff, it's interesting, but who cares? I skip the intros and just watch the game. My $$ goes to MLG and GSL. I have no room for this thing...
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
He brought it up as an example of a team kill, I followed the example. The logic stays the same though. Arguing that people who support EG would prefer to have one EG player excluded from the tournament rather than have two EG players play each other in a non-teamkill way is absurd.
If it was limited to 2 than you have an argument, but 5 players is enough to see most of your favorite players. If they don't make it to the starting lineup it means they weren't good enough to make it. Time for them to practice hard and make it to the A team, just like BW.
b-teamers aren't excluded from msl and osl.
Yes but people are saying having team rankings is bad because teams shouldn't compete within themselves (it's bad to say this team member is better than this one), and I'm saying that kind of thing has always been there.
What? No one is saying team rankings are bad. People are saying that team rankings shouldn't affect who gets to play in the tournament.
On February 24 2011 07:54 Motion wrote: Okay you dont get it right?
let me make it very clear with a very simple example:
Just imagine Hwaseung OZ comes new to the scene. Jaydong would have only one chance to play in NASL: Though the 1000man Tornament, well you all know this is random crap.
So with only have 5 Players per Team, the Rookie Jaydong from the New Team Hwaseung OZ will have a better chance to compete in NASL. Just because more Teams means more diversity and easier calcification for new good team based players!
Yeah, but the rookie Flash from the team of Reach, Yellow, Chojja, Sync, and Goodfriend doesn't get to play at all! How tragic is that?
Plus, if Jaedong is better than the 6th best players on a bigger team, he should be invited anyway. If he isn't better than the 6th best players, why should he be allowed to play?
On February 24 2011 07:51 sixfour wrote: Personally I don't see the problem with limiting it to 5 per team. Similar things happen all the time: WCG has only ever allowed three Koreans, going outside of esports, the Olympics only allow three per country in most things, if that (was watching some track cycling this weekend and it's kind of LOL that the UK has two sprinters with genuine medal chances but can only take one to 2012). So the sixth best guy on EG can't play? Big deal.
This tournament has the potential to cause teams with 5 strong players to stop adding new talent, since new additions won't be able to play in the team league. The country restriction in the olympics and similar events doesn't have that problem since it's way harder to switch citizenships. ;d
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
He brought it up as an example of a team kill, I followed the example. The logic stays the same though. Arguing that people who support EG would prefer to have one EG player excluded from the tournament rather than have two EG players play each other in a non-teamkill way is absurd.
If it was limited to 2 than you have an argument, but 5 players is enough to see most of your favorite players. If they don't make it to the starting lineup it means they weren't good enough to make it. Time for them to practice hard and make it to the A team, just like BW.
That's not relevant to my reply though. Your point was that teamkills suck, and you used the example of Idra and Jinro. I said that the limitation removes the "problem" of teamkills by excluding either Idra or Jinro from the start, a situation which is obviously worse.
What you make is a different argument, and argument that the five players is enough for any team, and that any players not good enough should simply practice more. What happens if your sixth player is better than 80% of the players who enter the tournament though? That player is clearly being disadvantaged by being in a strong team. Saying a player who should qualify for the Final 16 should just "practice more", simply because he has an all star team with him is unreasonable.
In BW, "A team" only mattered in Team Leagues. Anyone could enter individual leagues on their own strength. Flash went to the quarterfinals of the OSL before he was on the A team of KTF, for example. If KTF could choose to send five players, do you think Flash would have played in that OSL? Players in individual leagues should not be disadvantaged for being in a strong team, and tournaments should not choose weaker players based on arbitrary limitations.
Yeah that's an interesting point, but it doesn't really exist as far as I can tell. To my knowledge there isn't really a team with a 6th member better than 80% of the league. Most teams have a couple players who win tournaments or are fairly successful, and 3 or 4 other really good players. Once there is a team with 6 possible tournament winners, while most other players in the league are subpar I could definitely see your argument holding water, and you'll see me changing my tune.
On February 24 2011 07:49 Talin wrote: They simply want players who are reliable and professional rather than the latest ladder hero or weekly online cup hero whom nobody can vouch for. They want the player to have a tie with a team so that NASL people know who to turn to in case of any issues with the player.
Aren't they already going to be held accountable due to the fact that they have that $250 refundable fee?
If you ask me, they are.
But it's also the reason the NASL guy gave for the "you have to be on a team" rule when asked about it on State of the Game.
On February 24 2011 07:54 Motion wrote: Okay you dont get it right?
let me make it very clear with a very simple example:
Just imagine Hwaseung OZ comes new to the scene. Jaydong would have only one chance to play in NASL: Though the 1000man Tornament, well you all know this is random crap.
So with only 5 Players per Team, the Rookie Jaydong from the New Team Hwaseung OZ will have a better chance to compete in NASL. Just because more Teams means more diversity and easier qualification for new good team based players!
I don't really understand what im reading here can anyone rephrase? Or can you rephrase
Just to point out, according to the NASL system, only Idra or Jinro would have played in the GSL, not both. One would have been excluded from the tournament in order to prevent a team kill.
Except Idra and Jinro aren't on the same team....
He brought it up as an example of a team kill, I followed the example. The logic stays the same though. Arguing that people who support EG would prefer to have one EG player excluded from the tournament rather than have two EG players play each other in a non-teamkill way is absurd.
If it was limited to 2 than you have an argument, but 5 players is enough to see most of your favorite players. If they don't make it to the starting lineup it means they weren't good enough to make it. Time for them to practice hard and make it to the A team, just like BW.
That's not relevant to my reply though. Your point was that teamkills suck, and you used the example of Idra and Jinro. I said that the limitation removes the "problem" of teamkills by excluding either Idra or Jinro from the start, a situation which is obviously worse.
What you make is a different argument, and argument that the five players is enough for any team, and that any players not good enough should simply practice more. What happens if your sixth player is better than 80% of the players who enter the tournament though? That player is clearly being disadvantaged by being in a strong team. Saying a player who should qualify for the Final 16 should just "practice more", simply because he has an all star team with him is unreasonable.
In BW, "A team" only mattered in Team Leagues. Anyone could enter individual leagues on their own strength. Flash went to the quarterfinals of the OSL before he was on the A team of KTF, for example. If KTF could choose to send five players, do you think Flash would have played in that OSL? Players in individual leagues should not be disadvantaged for being in a strong team, and tournaments should not choose weaker players based on arbitrary limitations.
Yeah that's an interesting point, but it doesn't really exist as far as I can tell. To my knowledge there isn't really a team with a 6th member better than 80% of the league. Most teams have a couple players who win tournaments or are fairly successful, and 3 or 4 other really good players. Once there is a team with 6 possible tournament winners, while most other players in the league are subpar I could definitely see your argument holding water, and you'll see me changing my tune.
So if there's no team with a sixth member strong enough to be in the tournament, why do they need the limitation? That's exactly the point, if there are players strong enough to compete in the tournament (e.g. Haypro, Axslav) then they should not be excluded based on an arbitrary rule. If there are no such players, then you don't need a rule for it. Either way, you shouldn't make the rule since it can only harm the tournament.
EDIT: Just to point out again, teamkill is a complete misnomer since the tournament is not an elimination tournament. Players will play against their teammates, but if they are the best two players in the group then both will still qualify.
Let me gather this up a little. Tyler argued that early round team kills was good entertainment and better drama, and I'm of the opinion that team kills suck. I hate seeing them, especially in early rounds. I never enjoy seeing my favorite team getting 3 or 4 members in the same group. I would rather see a solution like the NASL is implementing, where teams themselves decide who to send based on team ladder or whatever metric they choose. Is that the best solution? Absolutely not, I would rather see all good players participate regardless of their team, and ALSO a way to avoid team kills in the early rounds. It's just my opinion that I would rather see the 5 player cap than see early team kills.
I think that sums it up better, and if you would rather see an entire team lineup play even if it means team kills/group play shenanigans then that's OK, it's your opinion and I'm 100% OK with it. <3 <3
On February 24 2011 07:54 Motion wrote: Okay you dont get it right?
let me make it very clear with a very simple example:
Just imagine Hwaseung OZ comes new to the scene. Jaydong would have only one chance to play in NASL: Though the 1000man Tornament, well you all know this is random crap.
So with only 5 Players per Team, the Rookie Jaydong from the New Team Hwaseung OZ will have a better chance to compete in NASL. Just because more Teams means more diversity and easier qualification for new good team based players!
Not gonna happen anytime soon dude. We're talking about now, and not 10 years from now where maybe Esports is huge in NA and all the kids got into SC2 at a very young age like the Koreans.
And your Jaedong argument is exactly Tyler's point. Why restrict a young talent from participating just because you allow 5 per team? If a team has 6 Jaedongs, one of them won't be able to play, or he will have to join a shitty team just because of one single tournament?
And like you said, the 1000man tournament thing is crap. The 50 player invite thing is flawed. Since we want to see the best players, make them earn their spot, through qualifiers. Maybe the problem is how the 50 players are selected.
On February 24 2011 07:54 Motion wrote: Okay you dont get it right?
let me make it very clear with a very simple example:
Just imagine Hwaseung OZ comes new to the scene. Jaydong would have only one chance to play in NASL: Though the 1000man Tornament, well you all know this is random crap.
So with only 5 Players per Team, the Rookie Jaydong from the New Team Hwaseung OZ will have a better chance to compete in NASL. Just because more Teams means more diversity and easier qualification for new good team based players!
Among many bad analogies on this topic, no offense but that's the worst one. =P
The way western scene works, if a player wants to get good and improve past the "weekly cup hero", he needs to get on a good team with good players. Only then can he actively work on improving and furthering his career. Take Huk for example - would he now be at the level he is now if he stayed on Millenium? No way in hell.
You can't just expect awesome players to show up in amateur and semi-pro teams. You can get a few talents, sure, but if they can't get on a professionally ran team with good contracts and salaries, they're never going to become top players. Disregarding all other factors, if you're not financially secure (which in most teams you won't be) you won't really be able to commit to Starcraft and nothing else in life, and if you don't commit to the game like that, you'll never be a "Jaydong".
On February 24 2011 07:51 sixfour wrote: Personally I don't see the problem with limiting it to 5 per team. Similar things happen all the time: WCG has only ever allowed three Koreans, going outside of esports, the Olympics only allow three per country in most things, if that (was watching some track cycling this weekend and it's kind of LOL that the UK has two sprinters with genuine medal chances but can only take one to 2012). So the sixth best guy on EG can't play? Big deal.
WCG is a world cup, and they send a certain ammount of players per country, depending on how much that country's national WCG commitee wants to send, and within reason (since it s a world cup, with a fixed schedule, and offline, you cant have 100+ players)
However there is no limitation as to how many players a Clan can send, at some WCG you had more than 3 players from ToT or MYM (just an example). And if a team was super big and skilled there would be no issue with WCG if all the players of a given game were from the same team.
This would more relate to the question of how many europeans/koreans are allowed rather than which teams sends which player.
WCG is a teamcompetition (national delegations) with several disciplines, it is not a real individual league.
Think of it that way, what would you say if the GSL were to put a new rule : only 3 players per team are allowed, wouldnt you criticize that move?
As an aside, will this still be a big deal if there are another couple player leagues that NA/EU players can easily join (which don't, necessarily, have the limit and pay a reasonable amount) and can play in both?
Ok so i also don't understand the decision behind this rule, if they want the 50 best players then invite them, however with this limit based on teams it is possible (although highly unlikely) that a top player like Idra or Jinro could be sat out of this league due to the number of team mates that they have in the tournament. If that is the case then how can they even consider marketing it as the top 50 get invites. I could see the limit if it was a team league, or it they were marketing it as the best teams in the world but they are not, they are marketing the best players in the world and that could end up not being the case due to this rule
On February 24 2011 08:05 Zim23 wrote: Let me gather this up a little. Tyler argued that early round team kills was good entertainment and better drama, and I'm of the opinion that team kills suck. I hate seeing them, especially in early rounds. I never enjoy seeing my favorite team getting 3 or 4 members in the same group. I would rather see a solution like the NASL is implementing, where teams themselves decide who to send based on team ladder or whatever metric they choose. Is that the best solution? Absolutely not, I would rather see all good players participate regardless of their team, and ALSO a way to avoid team kills in the early rounds. It's just my opinion that I would rather see the 5 player cap than see early team kills.
I think that sums it up better.
The way I see it, the teams wouldn't be the ones deciding which players they send. They would try to sign up as many people as possible, and it would be up to NASL to decide if even 5 of those players are in the top 50. Making it like "Team X gets 5 spots, who do you want to send?" if they don't have 5 players that should be in top 50 sounds like a bad way of doing it.
Maybe in the case of a few teams the ball would get thrown back to the team with a comment from NASL "We think these 6 players have enough skill to be in top 50, but you can only choose 5. These 3-4 do we think are the strongest that really should be in, but for the 5th spot it's too close for us to decide which is the better player, it's up to you".
Wasn't one of incontrol's arguments against extended series that "nobody but MLG does extended series... there's a reason for that". How does he resolve this obvious inconsistency in logic with respect to max 5 players per team, as this is an even more egregious error in rules (i.e., at least extended series lets the two players play each other to determine a winner, max 5 players explicitly precludes some players from even being able to play).
Here is my thoughts about this. If we step back and see this league as an opportunity to grow Esports in North America or in general then where do we start. I believe that Teams are what make Esports successful. If the NASL is seen as the best league or pro league whatever then teams will want to send players to this tournament and sponsors will want to sponsor teams who have players in this tournament. If more teams get sponsors then eventually we will have a thriving Competitive Esports scene with SC2 with many teams involved not just the 2 american teams that get all the sponsors and can afford to send there players to tournaments. And this just doesnt help NASL, it helps all SC2 tournaments/leagues. "More teams, more sponsors, more players" <-thats the goal
I think something important to consider for everyone using examples about the Brood War scene is that the Koreans already have a mechanism to restrict the amount of players eligible to play/qualify for individual leagues, Courage, and it's pretty much analogous to having to qualify via a 1000-man Open tournament. Of course, after you pass that qualifier, you're free to participate in all the leagues without arbitrary restriction by team.
I don't think that invalidates anything that's been said but it is something to keep in mind. One of the side-effects of the team requirement for invitations is that it will serve the role in the emerging North American scene that requiring a progaming license has for the Korean Brood War players, which is limiting the supply of truly professional players into a cartel of the most elite teams. To be fair, this is the exact same thing that happens at the professional level of nearly every team sport.
If having a cartel of stable, well-funded teams is something that people involved with the NASL see as a good thing, then they might fear that if the only limit to invitations is team affiliation that two or three 'superteams' will come to dominate the league, thus cutting off the marginal teams. So, the team-limit rule is a way to prevent predatory behavior between cartel members.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the mindset of the NASL creators was malicious creation of haves and have-nots based on team affiliation, but it does seem that it is one of the major side effects of the tournament structure assuming this becomes the major focal point of North American professional competition. However, the oligopoly structure that works in many professional sports is generally much more successful in pure team environments (the NFL and MLB come to mind). Even within the cartel structure of Kespa, they leave the individual leagues open to anyone who is already a member of the cartel. So despite being anti-competitive (in the economic sense), they still manage to maintain a very high level of competition (in the esports sense).
On February 24 2011 08:10 Gonzodamus wrote: Don't most professional sports have a limit to how many people can be on one team? They certainly limit the amount of players can participate at once.
Those are all team leagues...this is an individual tournament.
Well there is a Limit of 50 Players, without the 5 Player rule it may look like this:
Team A with 10 Players Team B with 9 Players Team C with 7 Players Team D with 7 Players Team E with 6 Players Team F with 4 Players Team G with 4 Players Team H with 2 Players Team I with 1 Player
50 Players overall.
Now there are some Issues:
1) There could be Team Tactics like the Team with more player could make an abusive strategy to sniper other players or to just manipulate the bracket ...
2) A new Jaedong from Hwaseung OZ who only wants to play on Hwaseung OZ has a very hard time to join the League if Hwaseung OZ aren't already in the League. If he don't change the team he has to go trough the 1000man Tournament...
How will you fix those issues without a 5 Player per team rule? But by reading this thread you guys are right, a 5 Player per Team rule brings other Problems with it...
This being only my second post I'm probably gonna get flamed for this.... However,
I don't understand the big stink with the team size arguement. As far as team liquid is concerned I can only see this affecting 2 people... and 3 team liquid players seem to be in Korea. Maybe those 3 should not play as the lag from playing on a NA server from Korea would be stupid. EDIT: well... maybe HayprO can play, but after today I'm pretty sure NASL is the last thing on his mind.
Maybe ROOT would have a problem? But once again they have 7 "top players" and I honestly cannot call minigun or ddoro elite tier players. If you wanted elite people, then i'm sorry some of your teammates aint gonna make it. Quit bitching. There are WAY too many good players to worry about 5 people per team. I imagine some teams will only bring 1 person. It's 50 people over 3 continents... get a grip. This is a non-issue that you're making an issue to support your teammates.
Awesome... you got your team's back... now let the tourney go on and if some doucher happens to make it in that some teammate of yours KNOWS 100% that he could beat well then bring that issue up for Round 2 of this thing. Otherwise... find something better to whine about...
User was warned for this post. This is a normal discussion don't call reasonable arguments out for whining.
To play Devils advocate here for a second: There seems to be a lot of opinions that every team in SC2 can front a 5 man team with each player capable of taking the NASL. I disagree with this. Liquid is more the exception rather than the rule. If we want, lets go through all the players of the bigger teams out there that could realistically be considered "the best" and be favored to win the NASL.
Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
EG: Demuslim, Idra
EG only has 2 players who could legitimately be a threat at the start of the tournament that could be favored to win it all. Way below the 5 man limit.
Mouz: Morrow, Naama, Mana, Strelok
Again, these are the only players on Mouz i see being legitimate threats at winning the whole thing. Still below the 5 man limit.
Root: QXC, Kiwikaki, Minigun
Only ones that have shown capable of really competing and winning big tournaments. Still below the 5 man limit.
Dignitas: Select, Sjow, Naniwa
Again, we're talking about the "best" players. Still under the 5-man limit.
fnatic: Sen, Fenix
I could go on.
The amount of realistic competition from each team does not reach the 5 player limit, other than team Liquid. Seeing this 5 man rule as an anti-Liquid rule is being judgmental without foresight or a bias against the creators of the NASL. Liquid has just as much of a chance, if not more, to win this thing than any other team.
The 5 man limit does have it's drawbacks. Limiting expansion of teams such as Liquid is a problem. Although more parity in eSports could be good for the community as a whole rather than having one powerhouse team with all the money and talent.
Think of it this way using this analogy to real sports: The New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, the Philidelphia Phillies and the LA Dodgers are the richest teams in baseball, in money and in history. They can literally throw money willy nilly and get pretty much any player they want. This creates powerhouse clubs in the MLB with little parity and expected winners out of maybe 3-4 teams in the league.
In comparison, the NHL has a salary cap, which withholds the amount of money you can spend on your teams salary. This creates more parity throughout the league and allows for teams with less of a budget to be just as competitive as teams with larger ones in larger markets.
I think of a team like Liquid as the Yankees of the SC2. A powerhouse with the best players who could all conceivably win a tournament on their own. And I think of this 5-man limit as a salary cap. It creates more competition throughout the league and in more competition comes more excitement. If EG or Liquid could sign say, some players from other teams like Sen, or Sjow, or Naniwa, or what have you, then it would be unfair to the other, "lower" teams like VT, or Root, or vVv or any others.
Tyler brings up good points though and should definitely be looked at in all seriousness. I feel that the guys behind NASL are different than the ones from MLG or GOM in that they are already infused with the community and understand that criticism will come and react accordingly. To make a huge deal and call the NASL an "embarassment" or a "worthless organization" is jumping the gun and a huge lack of vision in the big picture.
2 things I don't get... First off collusion can never really be eliminated, so why bother putting rules in place that can get in the way of having a more talented pool of players? If there was some end all be all solution that would make it so collusion was never a possible factor then, sure I might see why. But that it's done to prevent some instances where it's possible I feel like the guy in charge is trying too hard to cover his own ass.
Second what stops players on TL from making an offshoot team, that has no real bearing on anything outside the NASL, comprised of players on TL that still want a shot in this league? You stir up some forum drama about X players not being content and then leaving (details never disclosed because of the terms of their contracts and possibility of lawsuits). Now there is Team Solid comprised of X many TL members that makes it qualified to be a team to the NASL members and they just happened to be sponsored by the little app factory as well. What a coincidence.
The real flaw is that teams would have to go to such lengths to get their players into the event. I really think any event that makes players jump through hoops in order to get into events, is doing itself a disservice. You should welcome the talent from where ever it may come from and let the matches decide what's going on. Weakening the player pool to try and avoid some drama isn't going to do much when the games still have to be good in order to make the viewers happy
I really think it's sad when a lone player has to get on or off a team to try and get into a single event. If you simply have players on the same team in the same pool play each other first round there is no chance for collusion unless there is some kind of tie break between them. Which is going to be really susceptible to collusion itself, but when the outcome only matters between those players then who really cares? I didn't read any of the responses so someone probably mentioned that many times already... But if I can come up with something like that in the time it took me to write this, how long could it take to come up with a better rule?
If the goal of NASL was to spotlight the best team, this rule would sort of make sense, but even if they came out and said that was their goal, the rest of the tournament isn't formatted in a way that supports that. It's still a 1v1 tournament with each player locked into their spot.
I understand that it sucks for the teammates that have to verse each other in the first few matches or something, but like others have said, that makes for awesome drama.
On February 24 2011 08:16 Motion wrote: Well there is a Limit of 50 Players, without the 5 Player rule it may look like this:
Team A with 10 Players Team B with 9 Players Team C with 7 Players Team D with 7 Players Team E with 6 Players Team F with 4 Players Team G with 4 Players Team H with 2 Players Team I with 1 Player
50 Players overall.
Now there are some Issues:
1) There could be Team Tactics like the Team with more player could make an abusive strategy to sniper other players or to just manipulate the bracket ...
2) A new Jaedong from Hwaseung OZ who only wants to play on Hwaseung OZ has a very hard time to join the League if Hwaseung OZ aren't already in the League. If he don't change the team he has to go trough the 1000man Tournament...
How will you fix those issues without a 5 Player per team rule? But by reading this thread you guys are right, a 5 Player per Team rule brings other Problems with it...
since this is an individual tournament, how about you disregard the tag from Team A through I and look at the players only?
1) snipe other players... LOL... that's just too funny. This isn't proleague when you can snipe a player. They'll want to win no matter who they play.
2) Again, the invite method is flawed. Make the players go through the qualifiers. Works for GSL doesn't it? So simple yet so logical.
I say we get the best 50 players out there period end of story. If you are worried about cheating then have really strict penalties for players and teams caught cheating. I think you add a greater protection against cheating if you penalize the team too because now not only is he looked down upon for cheating by the community his team wont be too happy with him either.
I was actually planning to make a blog-post, since (and it seems many people feel this way) I feel that this rule is absolutely not a good thing, and I think it's actually worth gathering up people, and gathering opinions on this to make the NASL reconsider this rule.
And all other implications aside (wich have been excellently explained by Tyler and other people), I just think that it's just not a good thing for the NASL to basicly control the American (and the eu-scene) in this way with this rule.
They have a vision for how their league should look, how many players, and so on, and they are basicly bending the current state of the teams to hopefully shape in such a way that this fits in their scheme.
And I just don't feel good that one (big) league just has such a control over how teams should look, how they should recruit and what players to bring.
All in all, this rule gives some very small benefits (giving a win to a teammate, not playing a teammate), but even those are debatable, such as it's probably much better for the other guys in a team to actually be able to participate instead of just sitting on the benches waiting for a mlg or to change to another team. Or what are you gonna do when for example the 6th teamliquid guy actually qualify's for the open spot? Not let him join then, because the fact that he is now in there goes against what your rule is actually trying to achieve.
Anyway, I just don't see this end well.
I could keep tying and typing about all the negative side-effects off it, but I guess a lot has been said on this subject, I just wanted to show that there are a lot of people who agree that this is a bad rule.
In the end I feel, if you are gonna do an individual league, get the best 50 players, if you wanna make this about teams, then do a teamleague. But all these constrictions on what a team should or shouldn't be is just wrong, and I don't see it end up well for some people/teams.
I feel that because they haven't restricted players to having to be in NA to play in this league, we should look at how this 5/team rule may help them. What if all the existing sc2 korean teams had 5+ players in the league....would that be really representative of NA, or woould you even want to watch that much lag?. I dont think they should restrict it to # people per team but I think the rule should restrict the amount of non-NA players/team (if they were to keep the rule of restricting teams).
I think the bigger problem is restricting players to have to be on a team, rather than restricting the # of players per team.
On February 24 2011 08:15 Byzantium wrote: I think something important to consider for everyone using examples about the Brood War scene is that the Koreans already have a mechanism to restrict the amount of players eligible to play/qualify for individual leagues, Courage, and it's pretty much analogous to having to qualify via a 1000-man Open tournament. Of course, after you pass that qualifier, you're free to participate in all the leagues without arbitrary restriction by team.
I don't think that invalidates anything that's been said but it is something to keep in mind. One of the side-effects of the team requirement for invitations is that it will serve the role in the emerging North American scene that requiring a progaming license has for the Korean Brood War players, which is limiting the supply of truly professional players into a cartel of the most elite teams. To be fair, this is the exact same thing that happens at the professional level of nearly every team sport.
If having a cartel of stable, well-funded teams is something that people involved with the NASL see as a good thing, then they might fear that if the only limit to invitations is team affiliation that two or three 'superteams' will come to dominate the league, thus cutting off the marginal teams. So, the team-limit rule is a way to prevent predatory behavior between cartel members.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the mindset of the NASL creators was malicious creation of haves and have-nots based on team affiliation, but it does seem that it is one of the major side effects of the tournament structure assuming this becomes the major focal point of North American professional competition. However, the oligopoly structure that works in many professional sports is generally much more successful in pure team environments (the NFL and MLB come to mind). Even within the cartel structure of Kespa, they leave the individual leagues open to anyone who is already a member of the cartel. So despite being anti-competitive (in the economic sense), they still manage to maintain a very high level of competition (in the esports sense).
The thing is with a comparison to Courage, it's not a 1000 man open and nothing suggests theres really good amateurs who are better than B-teamers being stopped by Courage. If you're just plain good enough even you don't need to win courage, you can get a license anyway.
Now compare to North America where you have tons of players potentially being left out right now because of not being on teams. There's lots of great players who have not even had the opportunity to do so. If this was an open instead of a mostly-invitational i bet you'd see tons of upsets; the skill gap between the top and the rest isn't as big anymore.
But guess what Nazgul did in MLG? The Hole TL Team prepared to Sniper Idra ...
So guess what a 10 player team could prepare ...
So he lost 1v1 in an INDIVIDUAL TOURNAMENT? Who cares if the team prepared for him. Part of it was out of respect, but the other part was.... wait for it.... Nazgul wanted to WIN his INDIVIDUAL MATCH.
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
Be that as it may, the spot that Haypro would get would eventually go to a player on a semi-pro team that's leagues worse than Haypro, and if Haypro doesn't seem to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber, a player who gets "his" spot would have much less of a chance to even get out of his online division. So you automatically substitute a better player with a worse one.
I suppose my point is that while Haypro isn't as impressive as other TL members, or maybe even as many players from other teams, he will still be a Bonjwa compared to some of the players that will inevitably get an NASL spot if you enforce the limit.
As for parity between teams and salary cap analogies, you can't really force it in the current situation. You will just make it harder for the extra players on good teams, even though their talent itself should earn them a spot in the league.
Starcraft 2 scene being as frail as it is, we shouldn't be trying to limit powerhouses like TL in any way, but to encourage their further growth because they offer their players the best working conditions a professional player can get outside of Korea. They make it possible for the players become the top players in the world (see oGs partnership and Jinro for results). You can't just tell a 6th TL guy to leave TL for another team so he could compete, it would be a massive step back in his career either way.
Again, Starcraft in the west isn't really about teams at all, it's about PLAYERS. What's the point in making life difficult for some of the best players we have on the scene? Seems like a waste to me.
I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned here yet, but it's likely that the NASL will not always be using the Blizzard ladder maps, in which case a player would need a team (or at least a set of practice partners functioning as a team) in order to prepare adequately for the tournament.
That doesn't justify at 5 people per team limitation, but it gives some backing to the notion that you need to be on a team to compete.
Your argument makes sense. I just think it's weird to introduce something completely foreign to such a huge tournament. We never saw something like this in bw. Kinda makes me think of inexperienced people... but then I know Xeris is involved here...
On the other hand... who has more than 5 really class players? liquid and that's it isn't it? (eg doesn't count since it's their deal almost) And not counting nazgul you have 6? Any chance one of you isn't gonna participate anyways?
1) snipe other players... LOL... that's just too funny. This is proleague when you can snipe a player. They'll want to win no matter who they play. .
Thx for the "LOL" ... But guess what Nazgul did in MLG? The Hole TL Team prepared to Sniper Idra ...
So guess what a 10 player team could prepare ...
Nothing wrong with team's creating strategies to exploit a flaw in a strong opponent's game. That's why progamers mix up their strategies so that they're not always predictable. Even making strategies to take out a certain player doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work.
1) snipe other players... LOL... that's just too funny. This is proleague when you can snipe a player. They'll want to win no matter who they play. .
Thx for the "LOL" ... But guess what Nazgul did in MLG? The Hole TL Team prepared to Sniper Idra ...
So guess what a 10 Player team could prepare ...
That's different. First, it was Idra's fault for not being ready when the same strategy was used 3 times in a row. And you can do that without being on the same team. Idra and Ret can talk strategies if they want, they have the right to do that. What we want to prevent, is a teammate purposely losing to another teammate. That's where the harsh punishments come in, like I said in a previous post
Again, Starcraft in the west isn't really about teams at all, it's about PLAYERS. What's the point in making life difficult for some of the best players we have on the scene?
I really think Team EG had too much influence on this via inControl and these rules are a reaction directly to two things: Idra sniped by Nazgul at MLG and Machine vs inControl in early rounds early in MLG multiple times...
I love that: Starcraft in the west isn't really about teams at all, it's about PLAYERS. good comment.
The flip side is that better plays are better because they are on teams.
But back to the point:
NASL is an INDIVIDUAL LEAGUE, not a TEAM LEAGUE. Just look at Marine King Prime's (aka boxer aka foxer) story. He qualified through GSL as an INDIVIDUAL in an INDIVIDUAL LEAGUE and got onto a better team that way...
By the way this is a serious question. Please somebody involved with NASL tell me, who came up with this team restriction idea?
Seriously, if a player like InControl can't even qualify to TSL3, why would he be invited to compete in the NASL, who supposedly wants the best players in it (big LOL). Just because he has EG next to his name?
It just doesn't make any sense. No matter how you look at it or what argument they have, it simply makes zero sense.
On February 24 2011 07:22 dredd276 wrote: If we didn't have the 5-max-people-per-team rule wouldn't the people who were selected into the NASL who weren't on teams be really attractive additions for teams looking for talent? The NASL is going to be huge and the players in it will get lots of valuable exposure. So the "we want people on teams" problem should sort itself out.
tl;dr: most NASL players without teams would probably get picked up by teams
What if a player is looking around for a good option? A few big names that have been without teams for prolonged periods of time in SC2: Boxer, Idra, Genius, Ganzi. This is absolutely not because they are not good enough but most likely they are just holding it off until they find the right team/deal. Also if being on Duckload constitutes as a team then basically any player can just find 1 sponsor and put it in front of his name.
Three points:
1. You'd probably see mostly really high quality players who we'd want in the NASL anyway make that sort of move (e.g. WhiteRa or any of your examples).
2. If we lift the 5-max rule, how many players do we actually think will be in the NASL without a team for a significant period of time? 5? I suspect the number would be really low.
3. Just to be clear, this is an argument against keeping the 5-max rule, since all of the NASL's concerns about making sure people are on teams would be mitigated by the fact that teams will want to be pick up people selected for the NASL.
Requiring that a person to be in a team damages the game in the long run as it forcees a large number of teams that are unsustainable in the long term as the number of sponsers is split over a large number of parties. Some people have been saying that it acts to restrain big teams from dominating the tournement, I think this shows how far off topic they have gone this is an INDIVIDUAL torunement NOT a team tournement (like baseball, basketball) the fact that any one individiual is part of a team or not part of a team should not really impact on whether they as an individual do well.
Furthermore as it stands players that are worhty of entry will be prevented from doing so either because they do not have a team or they are on a team (the majority of economically viable teams have more than 5 players)
Additionally as Nazgual says above wat constitutes a team that has not been defined this is clear in other sports but is not clear as of yet in starcraft 2 in the west for example can i as an individual make a team of one (i.e. the team of me sponserred by me) or do i require a set amount of players, a sponser or do i have to have been around in this organisation for a set amount of time.
Finally as this is open only to teams and due to the teams limitatioon it will bne a closed system where teams will always send out their best 5 players and not give the other players on the team who may have genuie potential (but lack televised wins play) a good example of this is Jinro before he actually qualified for GSL and did really well he was just seen by many people as the teammate of TLO and friend of TLO etc now he is recongnised as one of the best terrans in the world this potentially would not have happened under the systemm that has been laid out by the NSAL
TL:DR, The team rule will reduce the ecconomic viability of sc2 in NA, wat consitutes a team and will smother rising talent while entrenching established talent at the top.
Aside from all the great arguments about being an individual league and limiting talent, I'd like to address the reason NASL gave for having the team rule: prevention of collusion.
I think this is a two part reason; one being the idea teammates will collude to post better results, the second being good teams will "crowd out" the bracket.
For the first rule, in elimination brackets the act of teammates colluding and throwing games so one player will get a better standing is in essence a team management decision, where the team has decided the winning player is the better player on the team. This kind of team management decision has been exemplified by the team rule supporters as a good byproduct, but only if the acts themselves took place behind closed doors. Additionally the concept of throwing a game to get a better teammate into the next round is counter intuitive, if the teammate really was better then there would be no need to throw the game. In group play the size of the group deters this type of collusion, if one teammate throws a game, that means 1 out of 9 games was won unfairly but that 1 game doesn't guarantee the teammate will get out of the group rounds. Collusion also is not limited to teammates and the true deterrent is an active oversight group that exposes and punishes occurrences harshly.
The second reason is "crowding out" a tournament. It is conceivable for a team to have a large portion of the talent in the community, but this is an individual tournament where only individual results matter. Also having a large and strong team makes the competition more exciting by giving other teams a large group to face. The real way to deter clumping of talent is to create a team league that gives incentive for teams to break up and compete with each other.
In an individual tournament the effects of a team are minuscule and rules based around teams are illogical.
I think the interesting thing about a team based league will be that there will be more rivalry between groups rather than individuals. I've never kept up with korean pro leagues, but the idea of teams facing off against each other there is very appealing, and following certain teams because they have those 1 or 2 superstars is really great for the team. However obviously it seems like NASL has mixed ideas about what they want to do. Theres no point in having teams if the players face off against their own team members, yet NASL has stated that they will try to prevent team members from facing off early. This is contradictory and I think teams are a great idea, but somewhere along the lines they forgot that they were doing this tournament in the wrong format.
Remove the idea of 'team-based play', introduce strict policies to uphold professionalism and accountability rather than relying on a team image to buffer professionalism. Other than this, I can see the idea of having teams as a good way to get a greater variety of players. Although sometimes I'm tired of seeing the same superstars facing off, you have to ask yourself, are you aiming for this to be a high level tournament or not?
I can see a few benefits to the 5 players/team limit but overall I can't seem to get behind it. One scenario that I think would be pretty cool is if the larger teams had an in-house tournament to see who gets the 5 spots. I would definitely want to see the VODs of a Liquid vs Liquid round robin.
The main problem I have with the limit, and to a lesser extent the team requirement, is that it clashes with what I understand to be the point of the league- to showcase the top 50 players in the world. In the extreme, if all 50 of the "best" players in the world were all on one team, would the NASL really want 5 of them plus 45 people that obviously don't measure up? The only way to showcase the top 50 players with the current ruleset is if those 50 players are already magically distributed across AT LEAST 10 [qualified] teams... so yeah, not going to happen.
I can see it working in a world with 20+ high-dollar SC2 teams though, because you need to prevent the "Yankees" affect. I think what we have now, and what this rule prevents, is a situation like baseball- there are lots of teams but all the good players go to the Yankee's because they pay the most. Now consider the NFL - all the top quarterbacks naturally spread out because you would rather be the star on a crap team than be the backup on a good team. Also, the best players on each team make about the same $$ anyways, so players prioritize being the best player on the team versus joining the team that is the best to begin with.
In a world where people will leave Liquid or EG because they can get better deals from other teams there won't be the talent stacking we see today so you wouldn’t need this rule. I think that to create this environment we need more money flowing into the SC2 community to "motivate diversity", not a rule that forces it.
EDIT: Obviosly I am ignoring any motivations or team preferences that might come from team based competition. If I wanted to have the most world series rings I would join the Yankees.
Something which hasn't been mentioned but should be noted is that the restrictions do not imply more teams will take part. Excluding Haypro from the tournament will not mean that Unknown Talent #1 gets included, it will mean that a weaker player from team vVv, who already have two top players in the tournament, gets included. The invitation system (+ team requirement) guarantees that well known teams will dominate the tournament. The only difference is that we swap a deserving player from a top team with a less deserving player from a slightly smaller team. Also, before anyone claims that the second player is not necessarily less deserving, the fact that he was not the first choice for invitation implies this. If he was the first choice, then there would be no need for the limitation.
To play Devils advocate here for a second: There seems to be a lot of opinions that every team in SC2 can front a 5 man team with each player capable of taking the NASL. I disagree with this. Liquid is more the exception rather than the rule. If we want, lets go through all the players of the bigger teams out there that could realistically be considered "the best" and be favored to win the NASL.
Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
EG: Demuslim, Idra
EG only has 2 players who could legitimately be a threat at the start of the tournament that could be favored to win it all. Way below the 5 man limit.
Mouz: Morrow, Naama, Mana, Strelok
Again, these are the only players on Mouz i see being legitimate threats at winning the whole thing. Still below the 5 man limit.
Root: QXC, Kiwikaki, Minigun
Only ones that have shown capable of really competing and winning big tournaments. Still below the 5 man limit.
Dignitas: Select, Sjow, Naniwa
Again, we're talking about the "best" players. Still under the 5-man limit.
fnatic: Sen, Fenix
I could go on.
The amount of realistic competition from each team does not reach the 5 player limit, other than team Liquid. Seeing this 5 man rule as an anti-Liquid rule is being judgmental without foresight or a bias against the creators of the NASL. Liquid has just as much of a chance, if not more, to win this thing than any other team.
The 5 man limit does have it's drawbacks. Limiting expansion of teams such as Liquid is a problem. Although more parity in eSports could be good for the community as a whole rather than having one powerhouse team with all the money and talent.
Think of it this way using this analogy to real sports: The New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, the Philidelphia Phillies and the LA Dodgers are the richest teams in baseball, in money and in history. They can literally throw money willy nilly and get pretty much any player they want. This creates powerhouse clubs in the MLB with little parity and expected winners out of maybe 3-4 teams in the league.
In comparison, the NHL has a salary cap, which withholds the amount of money you can spend on your teams salary. This creates more parity throughout the league and allows for teams with less of a budget to be just as competitive as teams with larger ones in larger markets.
I think of a team like Liquid as the Yankees of the SC2. A powerhouse with the best players who could all conceivably win a tournament on their own. And I think of this 5-man limit as a salary cap. It creates more competition throughout the league and in more competition comes more excitement. If EG or Liquid could sign say, some players from other teams like Sen, or Sjow, or Naniwa, or what have you, then it would be unfair to the other, "lower" teams like VT, or Root, or vVv or any others.
Tyler brings up good points though and should definitely be looked at in all seriousness. I feel that the guys behind NASL are different than the ones from MLG or GOM in that they are already infused with the community and understand that criticism will come and react accordingly. To make a huge deal and call the NASL an "embarassment" or a "worthless organization" is jumping the gun and a huge lack of vision in the big picture.
Just my 2 cents.
I don't think it's possible, for any tournament, to invite 50 players who have a reasonable chance of winning the whole thing. From the top 6 international teams, you mention 19 players who have the best chances. If teams like EG have only two feasible players, where is the tournament going to find the remaining 31 players with chances of winning the whole thing?
The question is not if player #50 has a feasible chance of winning the tournament, but rather if player #50 has a better chance than any unchosen players of winning the tournament. Continuing the Haypro example, he definitely has a better chance than most players in Europe. If we assume that he didn't have a better chance, then there would be no need for such a limitation, since he wouldn't be invited then.
I really don't think Liquid has more money than the other teams. In fact, I'm fairly sure EG has way more money than Liquid. Liquid didn't simply buy the top players, they made top players by spotting an opportunity in Korea, and through the dedication of their players. A money cap makes sense in certain sports where teams have a geographical advantage, but the cap was never intended to prevent teams from training the best players and using them.A money cap is simply not relevant in esports. All teams start on equal footing and the only advantage teams get is through their own skills. If EG has the most money then more power to them. They didn't get the money because they were based in New York rather than Green Bay, they got it because of their manager's skills.
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: To play Devils advocate here for a second: There seems to be a lot of opinions that every team in SC2 can front a 5 man team with each player capable of taking the NASL. I disagree with this. Liquid is more the exception rather than the rule. If we want, lets go through all the players of the bigger teams out there that could realistically be considered "the best" and be favored to win the NASL.
Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
EG: Demuslim, Idra
EG only has 2 players who could legitimately be a threat at the start of the tournament that could be favored to win it all. Way below the 5 man limit.
Mouz: Morrow, Naama, Mana, Strelok
Again, these are the only players on Mouz i see being legitimate threats at winning the whole thing. Still below the 5 man limit.
Root: QXC, Kiwikaki, Minigun
Only ones that have shown capable of really competing and winning big tournaments. Still below the 5 man limit.
Dignitas: Select, Sjow, Naniwa
Again, we're talking about the "best" players. Still under the 5-man limit.
fnatic: Sen, Fenix
I could go on.
The amount of realistic competition from each team does not reach the 5 player limit, other than team Liquid. Seeing this 5 man rule as an anti-Liquid rule is being judgmental without foresight or a bias against the creators of the NASL. Liquid has just as much of a chance, if not more, to win this thing than any other team.
The 5 man limit does have it's drawbacks. Limiting expansion of teams such as Liquid is a problem. Although more parity in eSports could be good for the community as a whole rather than having one powerhouse team with all the money and talent.
Think of it this way using this analogy to real sports: The New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, the Philidelphia Phillies and the LA Dodgers are the richest teams in baseball, in money and in history. They can literally throw money willy nilly and get pretty much any player they want. This creates powerhouse clubs in the MLB with little parity and expected winners out of maybe 3-4 teams in the league.
In comparison, the NHL has a salary cap, which withholds the amount of money you can spend on your teams salary. This creates more parity throughout the league and allows for teams with less of a budget to be just as competitive as teams with larger ones in larger markets.
I think of a team like Liquid as the Yankees of the SC2. A powerhouse with the best players who could all conceivably win a tournament on their own. And I think of this 5-man limit as a salary cap. It creates more competition throughout the league and in more competition comes more excitement. If EG or Liquid could sign say, some players from other teams like Sen, or Sjow, or Naniwa, or what have you, then it would be unfair to the other, "lower" teams like VT, or Root, or vVv or any others.
Tyler brings up good points though and should definitely be looked at in all seriousness. I feel that the guys behind NASL are different than the ones from MLG or GOM in that they are already infused with the community and understand that criticism will come and react accordingly. To make a huge deal and call the NASL an "embarassment" or a "worthless organization" is jumping the gun and a huge lack of vision in the big picture.
Just my 2 cents.
I think that when you look at that way as like 'well only these people are capable of taking the whole tournament,' it gets a little short sighted.
1st, I think SC2 is still too young to pin down who cannot take a big tourney. Honestly, people just pop winning first in tournaments every now and then who may not have done well before. We've seen this happen multiple times. Yes, we have people who we can consider stable powerhouses, but I don't feel like we can rule out that many players as not being able to come out and destroy a tournament.
2nd, even if a player doesn't have what it takes to take on the entire tourney, that player still has the potential to get far and represent their team and sponser alongside the rest of their team.
3rd, I think a big issue that I'm seeing in a lot of the arguments for the 5 person team rule is that they're only taking into account foreign teams. They're not thinking about Korean teams. This is a tournament with a big prize pool. While it maybe uncommon for foreign teams to have more than 5 players, the Korean teams are packed with way more than that.
4th, I heard on SotG that some of the NASL guys had talked to Nazgul about being able to split his team 3-3 or 2-2. If you're going to allow that, then what's the point of a rule like this?
5th, the label of a team in SC2 can mean different things. Look at oGs-TL. Yea, we know that the teams are not officially merged but are just partners, but can you honestly tell me that the TL guys living with oGs feel like the teams are THAT seperate? At this point, they're closer to each other than a lot of other teams who are officially just one team.
They really need to stop calling this thing a league. Its more like an invitational minus one spot(what a fucking joke). sigh. Whats funny is that this league was never about making esports big. It was about how one person saw how they could make a shitload of money. Yet its for esports!!! rofl what a joke. ALL the players and this community make up esports. Having a purely invite tourny does not benefit esports as a whole. GSL/KPGA/OSL/MSL all had prelims. Prelims that allowed EVERYONE to try their heart out. This is nothing but selection just so you folks can try and make dough. ;/
I'm disappointed in the direction this so called 'esports' is heading. Hopefully you get your act together.
I am really surprised TL did not have any impact on the tournament beforehand, given its huge experience with TSL. If I was the NASL organization I would listen to what certain people such as Naz and others have to say here : / Can't run a 400k $ tournament with amateurish ideas.
Now people saying that it would be unfair cause big teams could use tactics to get all of their teammates into the finals or similar. However this is possible for any players co-operating, you dont really have to be in a team to do something like that.
On February 24 2011 08:38 ReachTheSky wrote: They really need to stop calling this thing a league. Its more like an invitational minus one spot(what a fucking joke). sigh. Whats funny is that this league was never about making esports big. It was about how one person saw how they could make a shitload of money. Yet its for esports!!! rofl what a joke. ALL the players and this community make up esports. Having a purely invite tourny does not benefit esports as a whole. GSL/KPGA/OSL/MSL all had prelims. Prelims that allowed EVERYONE to try their heart out. This is nothing but selection just so you folks can try and make dough. ;/
I'm disappointed in the direction this so called 'esports' is heading. Hopefully you get your act together.
YUP, join me in boycotting giving any money to these guys. We have plenty of good quality content in GSL and MLG on a regular basis, not to mention the Dreamhacks and others....
I'm really disappointed that idra and incontrol are so behind this...
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: To play Devils advocate here for a second: There seems to be a lot of opinions that every team in SC2 can front a 5 man team with each player capable of taking the NASL. I disagree with this. Liquid is more the exception rather than the rule. If we want, lets go through all the players of the bigger teams out there that could realistically be considered "the best" and be favored to win the NASL.
Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
EG: Demuslim, Idra
EG only has 2 players who could legitimately be a threat at the start of the tournament that could be favored to win it all. Way below the 5 man limit.
Mouz: Morrow, Naama, Mana, Strelok
Again, these are the only players on Mouz i see being legitimate threats at winning the whole thing. Still below the 5 man limit.
Root: QXC, Kiwikaki, Minigun
Only ones that have shown capable of really competing and winning big tournaments. Still below the 5 man limit.
Dignitas: Select, Sjow, Naniwa
Again, we're talking about the "best" players. Still under the 5-man limit.
fnatic: Sen, Fenix
I could go on.
The amount of realistic competition from each team does not reach the 5 player limit, other than team Liquid. Seeing this 5 man rule as an anti-Liquid rule is being judgmental without foresight or a bias against the creators of the NASL. Liquid has just as much of a chance, if not more, to win this thing than any other team.
The 5 man limit does have it's drawbacks. Limiting expansion of teams such as Liquid is a problem. Although more parity in eSports could be good for the community as a whole rather than having one powerhouse team with all the money and talent.
Think of it this way using this analogy to real sports: The New York Yankees, the Boston Red Sox, the Philidelphia Phillies and the LA Dodgers are the richest teams in baseball, in money and in history. They can literally throw money willy nilly and get pretty much any player they want. This creates powerhouse clubs in the MLB with little parity and expected winners out of maybe 3-4 teams in the league.
In comparison, the NHL has a salary cap, which withholds the amount of money you can spend on your teams salary. This creates more parity throughout the league and allows for teams with less of a budget to be just as competitive as teams with larger ones in larger markets.
I think of a team like Liquid as the Yankees of the SC2. A powerhouse with the best players who could all conceivably win a tournament on their own. And I think of this 5-man limit as a salary cap. It creates more competition throughout the league and in more competition comes more excitement. If EG or Liquid could sign say, some players from other teams like Sen, or Sjow, or Naniwa, or what have you, then it would be unfair to the other, "lower" teams like VT, or Root, or vVv or any others.
Tyler brings up good points though and should definitely be looked at in all seriousness. I feel that the guys behind NASL are different than the ones from MLG or GOM in that they are already infused with the community and understand that criticism will come and react accordingly. To make a huge deal and call the NASL an "embarassment" or a "worthless organization" is jumping the gun and a huge lack of vision in the big picture.
Just my 2 cents.
If you're right then the 5-player-max rule wouldn't actually do anything since no team would get more than five invites (assuming they're inviting the best players). So then why have the rule at all?
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
Be that as it may, the spot that Haypro would get would eventually go to a player on a semi-pro team that's leagues worse than Haypro, and if Haypro doesn't seem to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber, a player who gets "his" spot would have much less of a chance to even get out of his online division. So you automatically substitute a better player with a worse one.
I suppose my point is that while Haypro isn't as impressive as other TL members, or maybe even as many players from other teams, he will still be a Bonjwa compared to some of the players that will inevitably get an NASL spot if you enforce the limit.
As for parity between teams and salary cap analogies, you can't really force it in the current situation. You will just make it harder for the extra players on good teams, even though their talent itself should earn them a spot in the league.
Starcraft 2 scene being as frail as it is, we shouldn't be trying to limit powerhouses like TL in any way, but to encourage their further growth because they offer their players the best working conditions a professional player can get outside of Korea. They make it possible for the players become the top players in the world (see oGs partnership and Jinro for results). You can't just tell a 6th TL guy to leave TL for another team so he could compete, it would be a massive step back in his career either way.
Again, Starcraft in the west isn't really about teams at all, it's about PLAYERS. What's the point in making life difficult for some of the best players we have on the scene?
While I agree with your argument on Haypro, he is indeed better than most players on other teams, it is his own perogative to be on Liquid and if he wants to participate in the NASL then maybe it's in his best interest to leave the team. Not because he doesn't deserve to be on Liquid mind you, but because for his career maybe it's better to be on a team where he can be "the guy" and not be seen as the 6th string odd man out. Again I take the analogy to real sports. A guy like Andrew Ladd of the Atlanta Thrashers played last year for the Chicago Blackhawks and won the Stanley Cup with them. He played on the 3rd line and was seen as not the best player on the team although he has tons of skill and didn't see much ice time throughout the season. He was traded to Atlanta over the off season and is now the captian of the team and getting more ice time. This has led to a career year in points and he is now widely more recognized for his skill and leadership. This could be a situation Haypro could be in if he were to switch teams. While I do not advocate it, or think he should, it's just something to think about.
Although realistically I don't see Jinro leaving his Code S place in the GSL to come to the US to compete here, so he may get a spot in the NASL anyway.
I don't see how letting a powerhouse team run wild is a good thing. It will do nothing to encourage competition between teams if one team holds everything. If Liquid wins everything the scene will stagnate and become boring as we see the same people winning again and again. Parity is something that is needed for a league to survive and stay interesting.
I really don't think Liquid has more money than the other teams. In fact, I'm fairly sure EG has way more money than Liquid. Liquid didn't simply buy the top players, they made top players by spotting an opportunity in Korea, and through the dedication of their players. A money cap makes sense in certain sports where teams have a geographical advantage, but the cap was never intended to prevent teams from training the best players and using them.A money cap is simply not relevant in esports. All teams start on equal footing and the only advantage teams get is through their own skills. If EG has the most money then more power to them. They didn't get the money because they were based in New York rather than Green Bay, they got it because of their manager's skills.
The money thing was more of an analogy. Liquid itself may not be richer but it definitely has more prestige to it than other teams out there which makes it more attractive to players looking for teams. That's more of what I was getting at.
1) snipe other players... LOL... that's just too funny. This is proleague when you can snipe a player. They'll want to win no matter who they play. .
Thx for the "LOL" ... But guess what Nazgul did in MLG? The Hole TL Team prepared to Sniper Idra ...
So guess what a 10 player team could prepare ...
Hold on, so Nazgul beat Idra in a BO3, and your problem with that is... ?
Nothing, no problem at all. I only suggest that a 10 player team in a 50 Player Pool would be to Powerful, cause they can train together to arrange or abuse the bracket or ladder to there own best, thats all.
So from that point of view, cutting it to 5 Players makes sense.
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote:Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
So what happens if Haypro decides he no longer wants to play SC2 anymore and retires, because of this limit Liquid can't go out and recruit an NASL calibre player as they'd have to take a spot away from one of their existing players.
I don't see why an individual league should be influencing team decisions like this.
Many people are using the idea that some of these meeasures are to prevent collusion by individuals but i have a queistion if this i s the case why would anyone collude to their personal disadvantage in a tournement i.e. theortecially lets say Tyler and TLO collude one of them will lose personally via this collusion due to reduced position and prize money or worse draw outcome.
secondly any collusion in the group stage could be mitigated by using the group formula that the gsl uses which prevents players from colluding in order to shut out opposing players as to delberity lose a game cause great personal disadvantage
again this is an individual tournement not a team tournement it doesnt help an inidividual in any way to collude as long as the tournement is set out correctly and is properly montirored.
Reducing team members will not reduce enough collusion problems (player A intentionally losing to player B).
To avoid collusion, you have to assume that gamers are going to game the system, no matter what.
Whenever player A is playing player B and each has a different expected value out of the victory, collusion may arise. ie: player A can't make playoffs, where player B can. Winning makes no difference for player A. So player A might concede because they are teammates, or maybe because they were buddies from BW, or went drinking at a LAN, or because players A is tired and wantes to sleep or even because they have a side-compensation. There are infinite other reasons, really, being teammates is only one of them.
A league-into-playoffs system is the most collusion prone system and is not ideal when collusion is a concern.
The most reliable way to prevent collusion is making sure both players have the same expected value from the match.
This can be obtained by having pairings defined by a modified swiss system (used in chess or mtg tournaments), or by having single/double elimination matches within different brackets. In other words, when a win means the same for both players, the system eliminates any incentive for collusion. This, allied with harsh rules, should be enough.
I don't have time to read all of this right now, but... The only reason all of this team business is in the League is because of iNcontroL and MLG having to face Machine 2ce. He probably literaly thoguht to him self, this is freaking stupid. I'll just make it so that can NEVER happen in my League. Only way to do that was to limit #'s of team players in a league to 5, so they could each be in 1 division. Will deffinitly read later though, GJ Nony.
I don't know why people are talking about inhouse ladders or teams sending players. In case everyone forgot, this is an invite-only tourney. They could have just kept their mouth shut about the limit of 5 players for teams and no one would be any the wiser.
Hi guys! New poster here, so hopefully you don't think these comments are too out of line. And I'm sorry if my point was been brought up before...
I think this discussion suffers from two issues (that are possibly related): 1) it's taking place on the TL forum, where many members love and support Team Liquid and tend to see the issue through the eyes of Team Liquid. Team Liquid obviously has many strong players and might well suffer from these rules by being unable to send a deserving 6th member to NASL.
2) most posters have a fantastically in-depth knowledge of competitive starcraft and e-sports, and as a result, they assume everyone has this knowledge and view the issue rather narrowly. They know that the best players go to the best teams, they know which good players are on which good teams, and they know how people get sponsored and join a good team.
I think what's missing here is the issue of appearance. It's not enough for the NASL to actually BE fair by the standards of the most knowledgeable fans of starcraft. It must appear APPEAR fair to less knowledgeable fans also, to a more casual gamer. It might well hurt the e-sports scene if it ends up that, for example, almost all players in NASL are on 2-3 teams. It would give a hard time to fans because, based on evidence from how people decide their allegiances to pro sports teams, they often pick a team based on a particular moment they saw or a particular player they love or where a certain player lives/comes from. But once they pick this team, they STICK with it 100%. If no one from several teams that people like are represented, there would be nothing to look forward to for some percentage of the fans. I realize that the team concept in pro sports teams is not the same as in e-sports (because pro sports teams actually play team sports), but people find it easier to support teams rather than individuals (for whatever reason) and thus they would like to see their favorite teams represented.
Basically, it would suck if their marketing campaign was "featuring players from....TWO different teams!" I think they're trying to (and it's a great idea to) promote a collection of smaller but more tight-knit teams and broaden appeal.
Another issue is that the league does not want to APPEAR to be colluding or favoring any particular team. Moreover, the league does not want to give overwhelming power to any particular team. Imagine if 2-3 teams eventually came to dominate NASL (whether because those teams gained fame from winning or caught a big sponsorship deal and were able to support more players or whatever), and then they threatened to boycott the league over a certain rule they want/didn't want. The league is caught between an uncomfortable position of losing its biggest draw (the best team and a bunch of great players) and becoming subservient to the needs of a single team.
The last issue is that it might seem like, to a more casual gamer, that in order to become a professional gamer, you absolutely need to train hard enough to be able to join a team first and then be able to dedicate 10 hours a day to practice before you can even compete in a major tournament. It takes away the romance of an underground player with humble beginnings but immense talent rising to the top as only the most well-established players on the best teams will have a chance to compete (I'm not sure how easy it is to put a team together as currently defined by the NASL, so perhaps this last issue is not a problem).
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote:Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
So what happens if Haypro decides he no longer wants to play SC2 anymore and retires, because of this limit Liquid can't go out and recruit an NASL calibre player as they'd have to take a spot away from one of their existing players.
I don't see why an individual league should be influencing team decisions like this.
I don't see how that's relevant. It's Haypros own perogative to determine what team he plays for. And why would Liquid recruit someone just to have them sit there and do nothing?
Jinro is not leaving Korea any time soon it seems, considering he is still in Code S and is doing well out there.
I don't know if Huk or Ret would come back to the US in order to compete either, as they are still trying to compete in the GSL. To be completely realistic, the players Liquid would send to the NASL as it stands now would be Tyler, TLO, and Haypro. Which is below the 5 man limit.
But as it is an invitiational rather than a qualifier I don't know how the selections process will be done. But as I said before, if we're talking about the "best players" the 5 man limit should have no hindrance for the teams that would be able to send players to play.
On February 24 2011 08:29 Talin wrote: Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
I really don't think Liquid has more money than the other teams. In fact, I'm fairly sure EG has way more money than Liquid. Liquid didn't simply buy the top players, they made top players by spotting an opportunity in Korea, and through the dedication of their players. A money cap makes sense in certain sports where teams have a geographical advantage, but the cap was never intended to prevent teams from training the best players and using them.A money cap is simply not relevant in esports. All teams start on equal footing and the only advantage teams get is through their own skills. If EG has the most money then more power to them. They didn't get the money because they were based in New York rather than Green Bay, they got it because of their manager's skills.
The money thing was more of an analogy. Liquid itself may not be richer but it definitely has more prestige to it than other teams out there which makes it more attractive to players looking for teams. That's more of what I was getting at.
Any prestige Liquid has is prestige that they earned in a fair and open field. As I mention, the "cap" that they include in many professional sports is because certain teams have unfair advantages. New York has an advantage because they have a "guaranteed" 15,000,000 supporters. They didn't earn those 15,000,000 supporters. Liquid has no such advantage. You could try to argue that because of the forums, we have more supporters, but the team built these forums, just like Vile could build their own forums. Every advantage that Liquid hasm they earned in an equal playing field, and that's the way its supposed to be.
Re: The basketball analogy: (via Russ and iNcontroL)
Basketball is a team sport where many players are subbed in an out, and player's chief source of income is their salary - not their tournament winnings.
If Kobe doesn't see court time he's no worse off in the greater scheme of things. If TLO doesn't get to compete in the NASL that is a potentially huge loss to him.
Going with the analogy - lets say the Lakers lose a starter. He's slumping or injured. No big deal sub in a worthy replacement. What happens if Haypro, mid-tournament, starts playing horribly? Can they sub in Nony or TLO? No. Haypro has to stay on the court - having depth to a team really doesn't matter in this instance as it does in team sports.
Russ said that if you're a good player then you should start looking for a team. Well what if you've found a team thats willing to pay you to play SC2 but they've already got 5 amazing players? You're out of luck! They would have made great practice partners, it would have been nice to not have to work a full time job, etc. but you have to turn down that opportunity because your best bet at money is to win tournaments and playing for that team would mean your tournament play isn't guaranteed.
I can't agree with some of this purely from a realistic viewpoint but in the future should it stick around(hope) and grow into something bigger then yes these rules could hurt some things but for right now it seems fine.
The five player per team rule is a reasonable rule. If only because, can that team afford to send the entire line up? Does every player want to schedule around it?(ie if you have a player in Korea do they really want to handle the lag to play in NASL?) and does the team even have 5 players worth putting into the self described "Best 50 players"? At the moment these things really don't seem to be a big enough problem for it to work or not work. I do admit it's a problem that has to be delt with but at the time, most likely not.
Players on a team? That's reasonable. If you are a solid good player, you should have no problems finding a team if only to play in NASL. People throw out a person like White-ra but let's be honest, White Ra could get a team faster then incontrol could break a nerds spine if he wanted to. I think in the future a bigger and more recognized league would be best to have a qualifier thats more open but for right now it's not a problem.
It just seems to me that right now these minor problems are best left until NASL hit's it big as it where.
I whole heartly agree with the team thing. I believe White-Ra isn't even going to be playing because he's not on a professional team. Such is a great loss.
On February 24 2011 08:38 ReachTheSky wrote: They really need to stop calling this thing a league. Its more like an invitational minus one spot(what a fucking joke). sigh. Whats funny is that this league was never about making esports big. It was about how one person saw how they could make a shitload of money. Yet its for esports!!! rofl what a joke. ALL the players and this community make up esports. Having a purely invite tourny does not benefit esports as a whole. GSL/KPGA/OSL/MSL all had prelims. Prelims that allowed EVERYONE to try their heart out. This is nothing but selection just so you folks can try and make dough. ;/
I'm disappointed in the direction this so called 'esports' is heading. Hopefully you get your act together.
YUP, join me in boycotting giving any money to these guys. We have plenty of good quality content in GSL and MLG on a regular basis, not to mention the Dreamhacks and others....
I'm really disappointed that idra and incontrol are so behind this...
Saying things like this is just... not helping anything. You act like you want Esports to grow by the way you THINK this league is going to be run, but then you shit all over it before it has a chance to even do ne thing. THAT isnt going to make esports grow.
Nothing, no problem at all. I only suggest that a 10 player team in a 50 Player Pool would be to Powerful, cause they can train together to arrange or abuse the bracket or ladder to there own best, thats all.
So from that point of view, cutting it to 5 Players makes sense.
Even if the team is only cut down to 5 players, a team is a team and they can still practice together to "abuse" the bracket.
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
Be that as it may, the spot that Haypro would get would eventually go to a player on a semi-pro team that's leagues worse than Haypro, and if Haypro doesn't seem to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber, a player who gets "his" spot would have much less of a chance to even get out of his online division. So you automatically substitute a better player with a worse one.
I suppose my point is that while Haypro isn't as impressive as other TL members, or maybe even as many players from other teams, he will still be a Bonjwa compared to some of the players that will inevitably get an NASL spot if you enforce the limit.
As for parity between teams and salary cap analogies, you can't really force it in the current situation. You will just make it harder for the extra players on good teams, even though their talent itself should earn them a spot in the league.
Starcraft 2 scene being as frail as it is, we shouldn't be trying to limit powerhouses like TL in any way, but to encourage their further growth because they offer their players the best working conditions a professional player can get outside of Korea. They make it possible for the players become the top players in the world (see oGs partnership and Jinro for results). You can't just tell a 6th TL guy to leave TL for another team so he could compete, it would be a massive step back in his career either way.
Again, Starcraft in the west isn't really about teams at all, it's about PLAYERS. What's the point in making life difficult for some of the best players we have on the scene?
While I agree with your argument on Haypro, he is indeed better than most players on other teams, it is his own perogative to be on Liquid and if he wants to participate in the NASL then maybe it's in his best interest to leave the team. Not because he doesn't deserve to be on Liquid mind you, but because for his career maybe it's better to be on a team where he can be "the guy" and not be seen as the 6th string odd man out. Again I take the analogy to real sports. A guy like Andrew Ladd of the Atlanta Thrashers played last year for the Chicago Blackhawks and won the Stanley Cup with them. He played on the 3rd line and was seen as not the best player on the team although he has tons of skill and didn't see much ice time throughout the season. He was traded to Atlanta over the off season and is now the captian of the team and getting more ice time. This has led to a career year in points and he is now widely more recognized for his skill and leadership. This could be a situation Haypro could be in if he were to switch teams. While I do not advocate it, or think he should, it's just something to think about.
The issue is almost career suicide. Why leave one of the best teams that has the best practice setup out of the foreign teams? It's like, "Yea, I'll leave teamliquid and then end up joining a possibly lesser team which wont make me into a better player." What if Haypro was a super player? What if that does happen later? Would that make NASL change their mind? I think it's pretty easy to pin it on teamliquid and haypro because Tyler is the one arguing against it but it will cause problems for other teams. This is about a team knowing that they have a gem and not being able to use it in a tourney. Yea, he may have not proved himself to the rest of us, but he has to Liquid and in their eyes, that factors in a lot.
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote:
Although realistically I don't see Jinro leaving his Code S place in the GSL to come to the US to compete here, so he may get a spot in the NASL anyway.
A good portion of NASL will take place online. So he could compete from Korea and then fly in for the finals.
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: I don't see how letting a powerhouse team run wild is a good thing. It will do nothing to encourage competition between teams if one team holds everything. If Liquid wins everything the scene will stagnate and become boring as we see the same people winning again and again. Parity is something that is needed for a league to survive and stay interesting.
The thing is, I don't think we're at a point in which we have to worry about that yet. The issue is that everything about SC2 e-sports is in a baby stage and this is harmful to teams now. At least for now, I don't see how a rule like this will benefit us more than being without it.
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote:Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
So what happens if Haypro decides he no longer wants to play SC2 anymore and retires, because of this limit Liquid can't go out and recruit an NASL calibre player as they'd have to take a spot away from one of their existing players.
I don't see why an individual league should be influencing team decisions like this.
I don't see how that's relevant. It's Haypros own perogative to determine what team he plays for. And why would Liquid recruit someone just to have them sit there and do nothing?
Jinro is not leaving Korea any time soon it seems, considering he is still in Code S and is doing well out there.
I don't know if Huk or Ret would come back to the US in order to compete either, as they are still trying to compete in the GSL. To be completely realistic, the players Liquid would send to the NASL as it stands now would be Tyler, TLO, and Haypro. Which is below the 5 man limit.
But as it is an invitiational rather than a qualifier I don't know how the selections process will be done. But as I said before, if we're talking about the "best players" the 5 man limit should have no hindrance for the teams that would be able to send players to play.
I also see this as being a bit of a non-issue. TL is basicly the only team atm that has more then 5 tip-top players who would compete in the NASL, but Jinro, Huk, Ret and Haypro are all in Korea atm and I don't see all 4 (especially Jinro) leaving soon. I thought the lag between Korea and the US was too much to be able to play from Korea (competitively), correct me if I'm wrong here. This is even disregarding any time-zone differences which can mess up scheduling. And apart from that they can always adjust the rules after 1 or 2 or 3 seasons if they and/or the community feels it is causing problems.
On February 24 2011 06:53 echO [W] wrote: Liquid`Tyler for president 2012.
I support this and his running mate should be a black eyed horse.
On a side note I completely agree with Tyler on all his points and it's specifically because of teams like team liquid. If there's a chance that this tournament, which is probably going to become the biggest western scene tournament, is excluding some of the best players in the world because they're on a good team then that's obviously ridiculous. If there are 50 foreign players in this tournament then every single one of team liquids guys should be in there and if one of them wasn't then there would be a less deserving player in the tournament. I'm not nut-hugging team liquid specifically but they're the obvious example and this argument is effectively what the issue boils down to. There are a lot of different concerns like how this would affect players decisions on what teams they want to join and logistical problems and such but at the end of the day if we're gonna miss out on a great, deserving player being in the tournament than that should be sufficient as the only reason to not implement this system because it won't be about the game and the players and the event will lose it's integrity as a true competition. That absolutely is not a path I think anyone wants to go down. Reference the nba and wwe style heels and heroes all you want but that kind of showmanship should take second place to the players and the integrity of sc2 competition.
On February 24 2011 08:42 ScarletKnight wrote: While I agree with your argument on Haypro, he is indeed better than most players on other teams, it is his own perogative to be on Liquid and if he wants to participate in the NASL then maybe it's in his best interest to leave the team. Not because he doesn't deserve to be on Liquid mind you, but because for his career maybe it's better to be on a team where he can be "the guy" and not be seen as the 6th string odd man out.
But it isn't in his best interest. Obviously there are more competitions than NASL, but for the sake of argument and principle let's assume otherwise - in that situation, there is no good decision for Haypro. If he stays on TL, he can't compete in the highest profile tournament. If he quits and joins another team, he will lose a (probably) great contract with TL as well as many other benefits necessary for his career to progress (practice partners etc). No matter what he decides, his career will take a step for the worse, because there is no way he can improve as much outside of TL as he can within it (+ the financial factor will kick in), and he can't improve in TL either because he can't play in the most important tournament on the planet. It's a lose-lose situation.
On February 24 2011 08:42 ScarletKnight wrote: Again I take the analogy to real sports. A guy like Andrew Ladd of the Atlanta Thrashers played last year for the Chicago Blackhawks and won the Stanley Cup with them. He played on the 3rd line and was seen as not the best player on the team although he has tons of skill and didn't see much ice time throughout the season. He was traded to Atlanta over the off season and is now the captian of the team and getting more ice time. This has led to a career year in points and he is now widely more recognized for his skill and leadership. This could be a situation Haypro could be in if he were to switch teams. While I do not advocate it, or think he should, it's just something to think about.
Look, while I do appreciate with effort, every single analogy made in this topic was just bad, including that one. Instead of making superficial analogies with other sports disregarding all the essential differences, we should just focus on what's best for the actual Starcraft scene where, again, IT IS NOT ABOUT TEAMS. There isn't even a single team-based competition that is considered important right now (There was GCPL and that Machinima tournament that Liquid or Fnatic for example didn't even take seriously because they are irrelevant to the grand scheme of things).
Starcraft is an individual sport, if you want to make analogies, make analogies to individual sports. But I would prefer no analogies as analogies suck in general to be honest. =P
On February 24 2011 08:42 ScarletKnight wrote: I don't see how letting a powerhouse team run wild is a good thing. It will do nothing to encourage competition between teams if one team holds everything. If Liquid wins everything the scene will stagnate and become boring as we see the same people winning again and again. Parity is something that is needed for a league to survive and stay interesting.
Liquid doesn't win things, the players do. Competition between players is what drives Starcraft, not competition between teams. It's Ret that won the Assembly, not Liquid. It's Jinro that made it to back-to-back semifinals in GSL, not Liquid. And if Jinro and Ret have to play each other, it will be between Jinro and Ret, not a Liquid and Liquid.
Even in Korea that did eventually grow a team league competition and it became reasonably popular, a player achieves greatness only and ONLY by winning a Starleague (or a few), and all the legendary players are remembered for their performance in the individual leagues.
Besides, if you want a team-based competition, first of all the NASL format is wrong from the beginning because it's structured like an individual league, not a team league. Second of all, you need actual pro teams. If you expect teams to just become professional by limiting powerhouses like Liquid so the others can catch up, you're just screwing up the powerhouses that drive the scene forward. I mean, Root as it is (a kickass team) can't get decent sponsorship deals, how do you expect other teams which are not nearly as good to catch up by preventing Haypro from playing in NASL? Haypro won't join a lesser team for lesser money, it's bad for his... well, life. He might just quit the game and do a different job that makes more sense, and the scene just lost an awesome player.
On February 24 2011 08:38 ReachTheSky wrote: They really need to stop calling this thing a league. Its more like an invitational minus one spot(what a fucking joke). sigh. Whats funny is that this league was never about making esports big. It was about how one person saw how they could make a shitload of money. Yet its for esports!!! rofl what a joke. ALL the players and this community make up esports. Having a purely invite tourny does not benefit esports as a whole. GSL/KPGA/OSL/MSL all had prelims. Prelims that allowed EVERYONE to try their heart out. This is nothing but selection just so you folks can try and make dough. ;/
I'm disappointed in the direction this so called 'esports' is heading. Hopefully you get your act together.
Maybe you missed the part about the open tournament that if you win, gives you an instant spot into the top 16? You also seem to have forgotten that the NASL isn't the only Starcraft 2 league in North America, people who want to get into the NASL can prove their worth at MLG or a smaller NA tourney/league as well as competitions outside of the states.
You're saying that the league is a money grab without even backing up your claims with evidence or logic, which is a big fucking accusation. I'm glad that nobody involved in the league gives a shit about you or else you might ruin it for everyone.
On February 24 2011 08:56 Parnage wrote: The five player per team rule is a reasonable rule. If only because, can that team afford to send the entire line up? Does every player want to schedule around it?(ie if you have a player in Korea do they really want to handle the lag to play in NASL?) and does the team even have 5 players worth putting into the self described "Best 50 players"? At the moment these things really don't seem to be a big enough problem for it to work or not work. I do admit it's a problem that has to be delt with but at the time, most likely not.
Players on a team? That's reasonable. If you are a solid good player, you should have no problems finding a team if only to play in NASL. People throw out a person like White-ra but let's be honest, White Ra could get a team faster then incontrol could break a nerds spine if he wanted to. I think in the future a bigger and more recognized league would be best to have a qualifier thats more open but for right now it's not a problem.
Shouldn't it be up to the team to decide if it wants to invest in its players participating in the tournament? And as has been mentioned countless times, the limitation ONLY excludes players good enough to qualify in strong teams. If the limitation has no practical effect right now, but could be damaging in future, including the limitation now is still unnecessary? Now seems to be the ideal time to get rid of unnecessary rules, as the organizers keep telling us that nothing is final yet.
Why should players be forced to join a team to participate in an individual event. White-Ra has his own personal sponsor, so why should he be forced to take a demotion to a small team (it would need to be a small team because of the five player rule) in order to participate in the tournament. It's not about whether top players could find teams, it's about an arbitrary limitation that serves no purpose (you don't mention the good the limitation does either). The limitation seems to have no purpose, while at the same time excluding top players unless they abide by arbitrary and potentially harmful rules. Once again, it should be pointed out that the limitation is only a limitation if it excludes someone. If the limitation did not exclude a person from participating, then there would be no need to use it. So all this limitation can do is harm the competition, unless someone can provide a good reason why it should exist.
im now wondering how many average players will basically get a bye into this league due to the fact that they are on a team better equiped for the format?
seems really unfair in a more than a couple of ways
I think people need to realize that a rule that causes problems later is the same as a rule that causes problems now. Future possibilities affect current decisions.
There are a lot of unanswered questions dealing with this "starleague". Is it team oriented or individual oriented? Is the goal to find the 50 best players or 50 most famous?
If this is an individual bases league then teams have no factor on how it should run. You wouldn't advertise anything about teams. When you watch all-star games you don't care what team the players are on, only how they are doing.
If the goal is for 50 best players then the whole invite selection method is flawed as well.
Lastly, for new tournaments there should be the least restrictions possible. The more rules you add the smaller the field, the more problems you have to solve. Rules are added later to deal with problems that arise. Rules that also only apply to specific instances are also not well written, they should address general problems. Saying that because in this case it doesn't create problems is short-sighted and narrow-minded.
Best example of a good starting guideline is the US constitution, a general outline of what the goal of an organization wants to achieve and how they go about doing it. Then additional restrictions were added to address problems that developed.
Right now rules are being added to restrict things that haven't even happened. The goals and ideas of this league are very confusing and vague, and the motivations behind them are questionable at best.
i think we are looking at this all wrong. I'm pretty sure that the man with the money sat down with incontrol, and said, lets have a NASL. how do we do this.
Inctontrol thinks for a moment about what MLG did wrong, and says, "We need backstory." okay, what else? "Team kills suck." and that was really all the thought they put into it. Obviously, when you flesh out the arguments regarding collusion and equality and development of esports (like Tyler has), then they begin to crumble. So all thats happening right now is we're getting into a semantic argument of what is "fair."
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what is fair. The NASL is a event that needs spectators to survive; without it, no sponsors, no money, no players, no league. Well, what do the spectators want? obviously, if you read these posts, you will see that spectators want different things. Some want to see up and comers fight the odds and make it. I however, just want to see the best players playing the best damn Starcraft in the world. It logically follows that any rule about selecting players that doesn't include "Choose the best player" is limiting to what i want to see of NASL.
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
I really don't think Liquid has more money than the other teams. In fact, I'm fairly sure EG has way more money than Liquid. Liquid didn't simply buy the top players, they made top players by spotting an opportunity in Korea, and through the dedication of their players. A money cap makes sense in certain sports where teams have a geographical advantage, but the cap was never intended to prevent teams from training the best players and using them.A money cap is simply not relevant in esports. All teams start on equal footing and the only advantage teams get is through their own skills. If EG has the most money then more power to them. They didn't get the money because they were based in New York rather than Green Bay, they got it because of their manager's skills.
The money thing was more of an analogy. Liquid itself may not be richer but it definitely has more prestige to it than other teams out there which makes it more attractive to players looking for teams. That's more of what I was getting at.
Any prestige Liquid has is prestige that they earned in a fair and open field. As I mention, the "cap" that they include in many professional sports is because certain teams have unfair advantages. New York has an advantage because they have a "guaranteed" 15,000,000 supporters. They didn't earn those 15,000,000 supporters. Liquid has no such advantage. You could try to argue that because of the forums, we have more supporters, but the team built these forums, just like Vile could build their own forums. Every advantage that Liquid hasm they earned in an equal playing field, and that's the way its supposed to be.
I'm sorry if I don't follow or am misinterpreting you here, but I don't believe it is on even ground as it stands right now.
While I agree that from the beginning Liquid was on even ground to build itself up from the beginning, as of the present this site and the team has more support and a following than any other foreigner SC2 team. Liquid would have a "guaranteed" support base as of now based on these forums alone. They would be the odds on favorite (maybe not skills wise, but definitely fan support wise) of any match because of this website and these forums, regardless of the fact that the team and the site are not one in the same.
And my point is that the advantage that Liquid has right now may be too much for some teams to overcome. Which is why the 5-man limit would help.
On February 24 2011 09:00 Talin wrote: But it isn't in his best interest. Obviously there are more competitions than NASL, but for the sake of argument and principle let's assume otherwise - in that situation, there is no good decision for Haypro. If he stays on TL, he can't compete in the highest profile tournament. If he quits and joins another team, he will lose a (probably) great contract with TL as well as many other benefits necessary for his career to progress (practice partners etc). No matter what he decides, his career will take a step for the worse, because there is no way he can improve as much outside of TL as he can within it (+ the financial factor will kick in), and he can't improve in TL either because he can't play in the most important tournament on the planet. It's a lose-lose situation.
I see your point. I'll concede that arguement to you.
Look, while I do appreciate with effort, every single analogy made in this topic was just bad, including that one. Instead of making superficial analogies with other sports disregarding all the essential differences, we should just focus on what's best for the actual Starcraft scene where, again, IT IS NOT ABOUT TEAMS. There isn't even a single team-based competition that is considered important right now (There was GCPL and that Machinima tournament that Liquid or Fnatic for example didn't even take seriously because they are irrelevant to the grand scheme of things).
Starcraft is an individual sport, if you want to make analogies, make analogies to individual sports. But I would prefer no analogies as analogies suck in general to be honest. =P
I agree it is not about the teams themselves per-se but the argument is based around a team restriction so unfortunately the teams will be affected. That I believe was the root of this topic in the first place. And I'll lay off the analogies now ^_^
Liquid doesn't win things, the players do. Competition between players is what drives Starcraft, not competition between teams. It's Ret that won the Assembly, not Liquid. It's Jinro that made it to back-to-back semifinals in GSL, not Liquid. And if Jinro and Ret have to play each other, it will be between Jinro and Ret, not a Liquid and Liquid.
Even in Korea that did eventually grow a team league competition and it became reasonably popular, a player achieves greatness only and ONLY by winning a Starleague (or a few), and all the legendary players are remembered for their performance in the individual leagues.
Besides, if you want a team-based competition, first of all the NASL format is wrong from the beginning because it's structured like an individual league, not a team league. Second of all, you need actual pro teams. If you expect teams to just become professional by limiting powerhouses like Liquid so the others can catch up, you're just screwing up the powerhouses that drive the scene forward. I mean, Root as it is (a kickass team) can't get decent sponsorship deals, how do you expect other teams which are not nearly as good to catch up?
While I see your point, I addressed that in my other response above. The whole root of this issue is the fact that teams cannot send more than 5 players. And while it is in fact individuals creating the results, they are still associated with their team and representing their team. Jinro of TEAM LIQUID make back to back semi's. Ret of TEAM LIQUID won Assembly. Idra of EG won MLG DC. Huk of TEAM LIQUID won MLG Raleigh.
And so on.
I agree it's a problem that some players will not be able to go because of the team restrictions, but maybe this will create chances other players might not have had in the first place. Who knows? I'm willing to wait and find out.
Again, I say Tyler made great points and I agree with most of them, I'm just playing Devils advocate here.
If you want "The 50 best players in the world", then you can't set arbitrary limits like limiting teams to 5 participants, or making a team mandatory. It just doesn't fit. If, after the tourney is done, people can say "Well, if White-ra/Haypro had been there, it would have been a very different tournament", then you've failed to meet the goal of having only the best.
The 5 players per team limit is fundamentally flawed. Since 5 is an arbitrary number (I know it's based off the number of divisions, but that in itself is arbitrary, so it carries over), you could assign it any number and carry it out to it's conclusion and see that it just doesn't make sense. For instance, let's say the limit were 2 players per team instead of 5. Now you are even LESS likely to have the top 50 players represented.
If you want the best, then don't impose nonsensical limitations that might jeopardize that claim. If you want "fair representation", then don't advertise that you're providing the best.
The accountability and collusion issues are too weak of excuses (even if these rules could be shown to actually address them, which I don't believe they do) to be worth diluting the quality of your players.
That being said, if Russ is unwilling to give ground on this issue, the larger and more accomplished teams could make the best of it and perhaps hold televised in-house tournaments/show matches to determine who gets the 5 slots. It could create some more back-story for the main event.
Tyler already mentioned in SOTG that TLAF-Liquid can technically "split" the team into two smaller teams (say Liquid-NA and Liquid-South Korea), hence circumventing the 5-player limit. In the end, it boils down to what constitutes a "team". White-ra might argue that Duckload is indeed a team with only one player.
If TLAF-Liquid does play hardball and split into two teams, what can NASL do? Talk to the lawyers?
my only comment at the moment about this whole team situation in the NASL is that surely theres no bigger team kill than being the guy that bumps another team member off of the invite list for the whole tourney ;/
On February 24 2011 08:29 Talin wrote: Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
I really don't think Liquid has more money than the other teams. In fact, I'm fairly sure EG has way more money than Liquid. Liquid didn't simply buy the top players, they made top players by spotting an opportunity in Korea, and through the dedication of their players. A money cap makes sense in certain sports where teams have a geographical advantage, but the cap was never intended to prevent teams from training the best players and using them.A money cap is simply not relevant in esports. All teams start on equal footing and the only advantage teams get is through their own skills. If EG has the most money then more power to them. They didn't get the money because they were based in New York rather than Green Bay, they got it because of their manager's skills.
The money thing was more of an analogy. Liquid itself may not be richer but it definitely has more prestige to it than other teams out there which makes it more attractive to players looking for teams. That's more of what I was getting at.
Any prestige Liquid has is prestige that they earned in a fair and open field. As I mention, the "cap" that they include in many professional sports is because certain teams have unfair advantages. New York has an advantage because they have a "guaranteed" 15,000,000 supporters. They didn't earn those 15,000,000 supporters. Liquid has no such advantage. You could try to argue that because of the forums, we have more supporters, but the team built these forums, just like Vile could build their own forums. Every advantage that Liquid hasm they earned in an equal playing field, and that's the way its supposed to be.
In my opinion you're not providing the proper amount of context, saying that the team built these forums is quite true, but the first draft of TL.net along with the initial Liquid` clan were very different from the teamliquid we know today. You have to keep in mind that the site thrived independantly of the team for (to my knowledge) most of it's excistence, this new site (largely considered a community hub, not a clan site) then went on to create the SC2 team.
Ofcourse the common factor that is Nazgul isn't neglible, and suffice to say he (probably along with quite a few others) are a better judge on this subject than i. I would still say, that the team built the forums [insert 10ish years], then the forums built the team. (long after the first team had succumbed to oblivion). Regarding the fairness I can't say, but it's definately a huge advantage.
While I agree with your argument on Haypro, he is indeed better than most players on other teams, it is his own perogative to be on Liquid and if he wants to participate in the NASL then maybe it's in his best interest to leave the team. Not because he doesn't deserve to be on Liquid mind you, but because for his career maybe it's better to be on a team where he can be "the guy" and not be seen as the 6th string odd man out. Again I take the analogy to real sports. A guy like Andrew Ladd of the Atlanta Thrashers played last year for the Chicago Blackhawks and won the Stanley Cup with them. He played on the 3rd line and was seen as not the best player on the team although he has tons of skill and didn't see much ice time throughout the season. He was traded to Atlanta over the off season and is now the captian of the team and getting more ice time. This has led to a career year in points and he is now widely more recognized for his skill and leadership. This could be a situation Haypro could be in if he were to switch teams. While I do not advocate it, or think he should, it's just something to think about.
Although realistically I don't see Jinro leaving his Code S place in the GSL to come to the US to compete here, so he may get a spot in the NASL anyway.
I don't see how letting a powerhouse team run wild is a good thing. It will do nothing to encourage competition between teams if one team holds everything. If Liquid wins everything the scene will stagnate and become boring as we see the same people winning again and again. Parity is something that is needed for a league to survive and stay interesting.
Look at how much Jinro improved when he joined TL-oGs. What would have happened if GSL had the 5-man rule? "Sure Jinro you can join us but we're massive and stacked so you'll probably never get a chance to play in the tournament" Why should he have to take that into consideration?
The case with Ladd isn't exactly analogous either because his major source of income was his salary, not which line he played with. (yes I know there are performance bonuses but these never eclipse salaries in dollar amounts)
If Haypro (to stick with the example) leaves his 5th/6th spot on Liquid for a top spot on Team AtlantaThrashers then a number of things still have to happen for him to qualify. Importantly - AtlantaThrashers has to be one of the teams who gets to compete in the NASL. If everybody's 6th player goes and joins a lesser team we'll still have top players not being able to enter simply because only 10 teams can enter (and arguably 5 are already going to be disproportionately stacked).
Next, he has to worry about sponsorship and management. While Jinro happily gets feedback from oGs without having to worry about working full-time, Haypro's Atlanta Thrashers might fold because there are only 2 names on the team and Intel wants to see its name in the ro32 4 or 5 times.
I just don't think its fair that top level players have to worry not only about being in the top 50 in the NASL, but being so in the context of whether or not their team gets selected and whether or not their selected team decides to play them.
Imagine how GSL would have gone if IM, ST, Liquid-oGs, and Prime could only send 5 players. We've seen dynasties happen in many sports without anyone complaining or losing interest in the sport as a whole. Even in SCBW there have been periods where teams dominate for consecutive years.
From a team sponsor's perspective - you want to add depth to your team and to your brand. The 5 player rule doesn't allow for that. "Hey Intel you can sponsor us but if we end up getting 5 really good players all of the other good players will possibly abandon ship and join your competitor's team because they want a chance to play and they're good enough to place on that other roster"
I agree with everything tyler said, heres to hoping the NASL organizers can actually listen to the plea of not just the spectators but also the professionals like NoNy himself
On February 24 2011 09:18 ptell wrote: Can this rule even be enforced by NASL?
Tyler already mentioned in SOTG that TLAF-Liquid can technically "split" the team into two smaller teams (say Liquid-NA and Liquid-South Korea), hence circumventing the 5-player limit. In the end, it boils down to what constitutes a "team". White-ra might argue that Duckload is indeed a team with only one player.
If TLAF-Liquid does play hardball and split into two teams, what can NASL do? Talk to the lawyers?
I think that nasl would allow it. Otherwise it would be bad blood in this community ;P
I think NASL's fixation with teams i just them trying to mimic the model set by professional sports. Whether that is a good or bad thing remains to be seen
Yeah, last night on SOTG I thought you were being a bit harsh on something new, but now I am in the same boat as you.
I think Esports is too new to have 10-20 good sponsored teams. If they need accountability just lower what an individual has to have as his safety deposit to 50 or 100, that is still a big hit to someone that isn't on a team and I doubt anyone who is playing in such a big tournament wants to be late or break any rules.
Lone wolfs also make for good commentary. Someone who has a ton of skill but a team hasn't picked them up makes it more dramatic wondering what teams are trying to bring in that talent.
Also, saying just like basketball you have to team to play is ridiculous. This would be true if you were playing 4v4 3v3 or 2v2. 1v1 is a purely individual competition, the best of the best should play no matter what team they are on. Team kills do suck, but something should be worked out so they don't hit so early on in a tournament.
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
I really don't think Liquid has more money than the other teams. In fact, I'm fairly sure EG has way more money than Liquid. Liquid didn't simply buy the top players, they made top players by spotting an opportunity in Korea, and through the dedication of their players. A money cap makes sense in certain sports where teams have a geographical advantage, but the cap was never intended to prevent teams from training the best players and using them.A money cap is simply not relevant in esports. All teams start on equal footing and the only advantage teams get is through their own skills. If EG has the most money then more power to them. They didn't get the money because they were based in New York rather than Green Bay, they got it because of their manager's skills.
The money thing was more of an analogy. Liquid itself may not be richer but it definitely has more prestige to it than other teams out there which makes it more attractive to players looking for teams. That's more of what I was getting at.
Any prestige Liquid has is prestige that they earned in a fair and open field. As I mention, the "cap" that they include in many professional sports is because certain teams have unfair advantages. New York has an advantage because they have a "guaranteed" 15,000,000 supporters. They didn't earn those 15,000,000 supporters. Liquid has no such advantage. You could try to argue that because of the forums, we have more supporters, but the team built these forums, just like Vile could build their own forums. Every advantage that Liquid hasm they earned in an equal playing field, and that's the way its supposed to be.
I'm sorry if I don't follow or am misinterpreting you here, but I don't believe it is on even ground as it stands right now.
While I agree that from the beginning Liquid was on even ground to build itself up from the beginning, as of the present this site and the team has more support and a following than any other foreigner SC2 team. Liquid would have a "guaranteed" support base as of now based on these forums alone. They would be the odds on favorite (maybe not skills wise, but definitely fan support wise) of any match because of this website and these forums, regardless of the fact that the team and the site are not one in the same.
And my point is that the advantage that Liquid has right now may be too much for some teams to overcome. Which is why the 5-man limit would help.
On February 24 2011 09:00 Talin wrote: But it isn't in his best interest. Obviously there are more competitions than NASL, but for the sake of argument and principle let's assume otherwise - in that situation, there is no good decision for Haypro. If he stays on TL, he can't compete in the highest profile tournament. If he quits and joins another team, he will lose a (probably) great contract with TL as well as many other benefits necessary for his career to progress (practice partners etc). No matter what he decides, his career will take a step for the worse, because there is no way he can improve as much outside of TL as he can within it (+ the financial factor will kick in), and he can't improve in TL either because he can't play in the most important tournament on the planet. It's a lose-lose situation.
I see your point. I'll concede that arguement to you.
Look, while I do appreciate with effort, every single analogy made in this topic was just bad, including that one. Instead of making superficial analogies with other sports disregarding all the essential differences, we should just focus on what's best for the actual Starcraft scene where, again, IT IS NOT ABOUT TEAMS. There isn't even a single team-based competition that is considered important right now (There was GCPL and that Machinima tournament that Liquid or Fnatic for example didn't even take seriously because they are irrelevant to the grand scheme of things).
Starcraft is an individual sport, if you want to make analogies, make analogies to individual sports. But I would prefer no analogies as analogies suck in general to be honest. =P
I agree it is not about the teams themselves per-se but the argument is based around a team restriction so unfortunately the teams will be affected. That I believe was the root of this topic in the first place. And I'll lay off the analogies now ^_^
Liquid doesn't win things, the players do. Competition between players is what drives Starcraft, not competition between teams. It's Ret that won the Assembly, not Liquid. It's Jinro that made it to back-to-back semifinals in GSL, not Liquid. And if Jinro and Ret have to play each other, it will be between Jinro and Ret, not a Liquid and Liquid.
Even in Korea that did eventually grow a team league competition and it became reasonably popular, a player achieves greatness only and ONLY by winning a Starleague (or a few), and all the legendary players are remembered for their performance in the individual leagues.
Besides, if you want a team-based competition, first of all the NASL format is wrong from the beginning because it's structured like an individual league, not a team league. Second of all, you need actual pro teams. If you expect teams to just become professional by limiting powerhouses like Liquid so the others can catch up, you're just screwing up the powerhouses that drive the scene forward. I mean, Root as it is (a kickass team) can't get decent sponsorship deals, how do you expect other teams which are not nearly as good to catch up?
While I see your point, I addressed that in my other response above. The whole root of this issue is the fact that teams cannot send more than 5 players. And while it is in fact individuals creating the results, they are still associated with their team and representing their team. Jinro of TEAM LIQUID make back to back semi's. Ret of TEAM LIQUID won Assembly. Idra of EG won MLG DC. Huk of TEAM LIQUID won MLG Raleigh.
And so on.
I agree it's a problem that some players will not be able to go because of the team restrictions, but maybe this will create chances other players might not have had in the first place. Who knows? I'm willing to wait and find out.
Again, I say Tyler made great points and I agree with most of them, I'm just playing Devils advocate here.
Even if we assume your statement about TL supporters being greater, I don't see how that factors into a tournament. Seahawks have some of the loudest fans in NFL, and yet they still suck. The only case in which fan support can equate to better standing is when support equates gain in income, like the Yankees, even then they are getting better players to complement their TEAM. But the structuring of this league is an individual one, so having better teammates doesn't affect the performance of the individual.
The root of the debate is on team restrictions, which should have no bearings on an individual based competition.
On February 24 2011 09:20 Alur wrote: In my opinion you're not providing the proper amount of context, saying that the team built these forums is quite true, but the first draft of TL.net along with the initial Liquid` clan were very different from the teamliquid we know today. You have to keep in mind that the site thrived independantly of the team for (to my knowledge) most of it's excistence, this new site (largely considered a community hub, not a clan site) then went on to create the SC2 team.
Ofcourse the common factor that is Nazgul isn't neglible, and suffice to say he (probably along with quite a few others) are a better judge on this subject than i. I would still say, that the team built the forums [insert 10ish years], then the forums built the team. (long after the first team had succumbed to oblivion). Regarding the fairness I can't say, but it's definately a huge advantage.
Uhm yea the original TL.net basically used the teams name and fame to get people to come to our news/forum website. After that initial exposure it was the people from the community that built this site on and on and on. Then after that we used that to give a pro-team a shot in SC2. I think you got most of that right
This whole NASL thing is getting old already! Some egos that have proved to be large to begin with, are now only growing. The power tripping that's going on seems to beexcessive for an event that is yet to be established or developed. It's a shame that it could be a real positive thing for the community and it's becoming a political, poplularity driven snob fest.
While I agree with the OP to a certain extent, I feel there are pieces to the puzzle still missing that are preventing us from seeing the whys in the decisions they have made thus far.
It seems to me that they (NASL) are trying to cultivate a more major league type atmosphere, similar to lets say the NFL or really any other Western competitive entertainment. A regular season (the 9 week divisional play), Win your division (or top 2 as it seems in this case) = a spot in the playoffs. Wildcard week to fill out 5 of the six remaining spots + the open to allow anyone to be able to say they tried.
If this is what they are going for then I would argue that the rule will be needed at some point as they have stated their dream would be to have 10 teams with 5 players each, but with the league as new as it is I don't think there will be enough high end teams to field this.
Or could the rule simply be there to prevent the Korean mega teams with double digit rosters from sending hoards of top end talent to try and dominate.
So in closing the rule will probably be necessary at some point but maybe not yet. I don't want to say we shouldn't be trying to help make the league better with our criticisms, but I don't think we should get too defensive about it until all the details (how will the up down system work after the initial invite only season 1, is the league willing to expand to more divisions with fewer people per division if there is too much demand for more players but no more truly deserving teams, how interested will the Koreans be in this tournament) are out and in the open.
What if you're a top 30 player but your team depth is such that they aren't selected to participate in the tournament? You have to join a better team, but not one that is so good so as to put you at risk of being number 5 or 6?
I guess you guys don't even realize why they want players on teams. They want teams so they can control the league better and be more financially stable. Instead of dealing with individuals they will deal with the teams leaders so that more people are held accountable for one players actions. it just helps everything to run smoothly and more professionally, I could elaborate but i think you get the point.
While I don't disagree with any of Tyler's points I don't think this needs to be a major point of contention. Yes the rule exists but even Liquid, I don't believe, has more than 5 of the top 50 foreigners in the world, and even so, it is absolutely nice to see some diversity, as even if a team has 5 men entered, the rule applies to everyone.
Its unfortunate for Liquid yes, but the rule does have backing points behind it, and anyone can throw "what ifs" around to argue their side but its largely useless. I guess it is what it is.
On February 24 2011 09:27 x_plorer2 wrote: What if you're a top 30 player but your team dept is such that they aren't selected to participate in the tournament? You have to join a better team, but not one that is so good so as to put you at risk of being number 5 or 6?
If you're a top 30 player and on a team that fits the criteria of being a team, you should get in. The players should be chosen before the teams play a role, not the other way around with sending invites to 10 teams and going "collect 5 good players each to play in the league".
The big question in my eyes is how the participants are chosen. What is the criteria for selection? Most probably fame, in which case the five man limit is a hindrance in obtaining the fame of the liquid players. If accomplishments, I don't see the five-man limit as a problem. Ret/Jinro/Huk/TLO/? I say that with respect, I have much love for the TL-team. But if we're honest, those are the players from the team who've achieved top-50 results in SC2.
So I think that the organizers probably aren't talking too much about one of the major reasons for this rule. One of the ways they are trying to make ESPORTS popular in the West is through an increased use of backstory and player storylines in their shows. My guess is, they want to really play up the team affiliations of players in making these storylines. They would be trying to bring teams into the individual event because they think that's the best way to make esports exciting to a new audience.
Of course, this is speculation, but I think it's the most probable thing.
If my speculation is correct - I think that the nasl rule deserves more sympathy than it's getting. I'm still not sure if it's worthwhile to exclude a couple players who might otherwise be qualified, but at least there's a good reason (ESPORTS).
Also - is this really a problem? Is Jinro planning on playing on US from Korea? Judging by GCPL play, the lag hurts a lot. If he stays focused on GSL, doesn't that leave only 5 Liquidians? Or am I miscounting? (Ofc I would love to see Jinro play, not saying he shouldn't, just thinking.)
On February 24 2011 09:30 Sky0 wrote: I guess you guys don't even realize why they want players on teams. They want teams so they can control the league better and be more financially stable. Instead of dealing with individuals they will deal with the teams leaders so that more people are held accountable for one players actions. it just helps everything to run smoothly and more professionally, I could elaborate but i think you get the point.
Forcing a player to be on a team and limiting the amount of players who represent a given team are two different things.
On February 24 2011 08:18 ScarletKnight wrote: Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
I really don't think Liquid has more money than the other teams. In fact, I'm fairly sure EG has way more money than Liquid. Liquid didn't simply buy the top players, they made top players by spotting an opportunity in Korea, and through the dedication of their players. A money cap makes sense in certain sports where teams have a geographical advantage, but the cap was never intended to prevent teams from training the best players and using them.A money cap is simply not relevant in esports. All teams start on equal footing and the only advantage teams get is through their own skills. If EG has the most money then more power to them. They didn't get the money because they were based in New York rather than Green Bay, they got it because of their manager's skills.
The money thing was more of an analogy. Liquid itself may not be richer but it definitely has more prestige to it than other teams out there which makes it more attractive to players looking for teams. That's more of what I was getting at.
Any prestige Liquid has is prestige that they earned in a fair and open field. As I mention, the "cap" that they include in many professional sports is because certain teams have unfair advantages. New York has an advantage because they have a "guaranteed" 15,000,000 supporters. They didn't earn those 15,000,000 supporters. Liquid has no such advantage. You could try to argue that because of the forums, we have more supporters, but the team built these forums, just like Vile could build their own forums. Every advantage that Liquid hasm they earned in an equal playing field, and that's the way its supposed to be.
I'm sorry if I don't follow or am misinterpreting you here, but I don't believe it is on even ground as it stands right now.
While I agree that from the beginning Liquid was on even ground to build itself up from the beginning, as of the present this site and the team has more support and a following than any other foreigner SC2 team. Liquid would have a "guaranteed" support base as of now based on these forums alone. They would be the odds on favorite (maybe not skills wise, but definitely fan support wise) of any match because of this website and these forums, regardless of the fact that the team and the site are not one in the same.
And my point is that the advantage that Liquid has right now may be too much for some teams to overcome. Which is why the 5-man limit would help.
The point is that Liquid earned its advantage by being the most consistent and dedicated team (both in terms of their play and the forums) over a long period of time. Blaming TL for that is like blaming a team for interacting with fans better than other teams. Any team could have done it, and can still do it, but it takes time and effort and TL was the only team willing to invest that and make it what it is. The fact that they now have a "big" advantage is of no consequence, that big advantage was earned fair and square. If you apply it to training, it would be like artificially preventing a team's players from playing at their best because the players' hard work made them too good. If the advantage is earned fairly, then other teams must just do their best to catch up. EG, for example, seem to have very good business connections which they used to get sponsorships and build a great team. They earned those business connections, just like TL earned its fan base, and as such they should not be limited because of them.
Flash is a great SC player, and he earned that through hardwork. Just because his lead seems to be insurmountable does not make it fair to give him a predetermined disadvantage. As long as he built up that lead in fair conditions, he deserves it. Similarly, Liquid has built up its fanbase through its long Starcraft tradition. The forums started out as a place where the team could discuss games, strategies, and Starcraft in general. Through the leadership of Nazgul, and the participation of the Liquid members, other people joined the website and formed the current fanbase. It is the Liquid Team's hardwork (in an equal environment) which created the current fanbase, and as such they deserve to get the benefits of such a fanbase (whatever it may be in this situation).
Speaking of the advantage, what tangible insurmountable advantage does Liquid have, other than the best players (which they created)? You could say that HuK joined the team because of the (fairly earned) prestige of the website since he was established before he joined Liquid, and maaaaybe you could make an argument for TLO. However, TL did way less "purchasing" of top players than any of the current top teams. TL's players were made thanks to hard work, dedication, and an eye for talent. TL also took a large risk in going to Korea, a risk anyone else could have taken, to improve their players, which paid off. So what exactly is the insurmountable advantage that Liquid has, and why is it unfair?
On February 24 2011 08:29 Talin wrote: Liquid: Tyler, Huk, Jinro, Ret, TLO
I'm sorry, but in my own opinion, Haypro has done nothing to prove to be capable of winning a tournament of this caliber. While an excellent player he is, I myself don't believe that he could win an NASL as it stands considering the kind of competition we should see there. So realistically Liquid could front the 5 man limit and still have a favorite to win the whole thing in each division. Lets move on to the other teams now.
I really don't think Liquid has more money than the other teams. In fact, I'm fairly sure EG has way more money than Liquid. Liquid didn't simply buy the top players, they made top players by spotting an opportunity in Korea, and through the dedication of their players. A money cap makes sense in certain sports where teams have a geographical advantage, but the cap was never intended to prevent teams from training the best players and using them.A money cap is simply not relevant in esports. All teams start on equal footing and the only advantage teams get is through their own skills. If EG has the most money then more power to them. They didn't get the money because they were based in New York rather than Green Bay, they got it because of their manager's skills.
The money thing was more of an analogy. Liquid itself may not be richer but it definitely has more prestige to it than other teams out there which makes it more attractive to players looking for teams. That's more of what I was getting at.
Any prestige Liquid has is prestige that they earned in a fair and open field. As I mention, the "cap" that they include in many professional sports is because certain teams have unfair advantages. New York has an advantage because they have a "guaranteed" 15,000,000 supporters. They didn't earn those 15,000,000 supporters. Liquid has no such advantage. You could try to argue that because of the forums, we have more supporters, but the team built these forums, just like Vile could build their own forums. Every advantage that Liquid hasm they earned in an equal playing field, and that's the way its supposed to be.
In my opinion you're not providing the proper amount of context, saying that the team built these forums is quite true, but the first draft of TL.net along with the initial Liquid` clan were very different from the teamliquid we know today. You have to keep in mind that the site thrived independantly of the team for (to my knowledge) most of it's excistence, this new site (largely considered a community hub, not a clan site) then went on to create the SC2 team.
Ofcourse the common factor that is Nazgul isn't neglible, and suffice to say he (probably along with quite a few others) are a better judge on this subject than i. I would still say, that the team built the forums [insert 10ish years], then the forums built the team. (long after the first team had succumbed to oblivion). Regarding the fairness I can't say, but it's definately a huge advantage.
I think I adressed most of this earlier in my post. It's a huge advantage in getting popular votes for things like the NASL, but I still think the success of the players is largely due to the work of the players themselves, and the leadership of Nazgul. TL picked up lots of players before they were successful in SC2, and these players could have been picked up by any team. Maybe the forums gave TL a bit more prestige making it more likely that players would join TL, but ultimately I don't think this advantage is that big (not as big as a slightly larger contract, for example). Anyway, it's not like TL used that advantage to pick up the top players at the time. If I'm not mistaken, five of TL's six current players were unsigned when they joined the team. Other teams could have picked them up if they wanted to, and other teams have picked up top players from smaller teams on a much larger scale than TL has.
On February 24 2011 09:15 ScarletKnight wrote: While I see your point, I addressed that in my other response above. The whole root of this issue is the fact that teams cannot send more than 5 players. And while it is in fact individuals creating the results, they are still associated with their team and representing their team. Jinro of TEAM LIQUID make back to back semi's. Ret of TEAM LIQUID won Assembly. Idra of EG won MLG DC. Huk of TEAM LIQUID won MLG Raleigh.
And so on.
I agree it's a problem that some players will not be able to go because of the team restrictions, but maybe this will create chances other players might not have had in the first place. Who knows? I'm willing to wait and find out.
Again, I say Tyler made great points and I agree with most of them, I'm just playing Devils advocate here.
Actually, HuK of Team Liquid didn't win MLG Raleigh, HuK of Millenium won MLG Raleigh (unless I'm terribly wrong in which case this whole post will be embarrasing, but I think he wasn't on TL yet at that point xD).
I didn't mean to nitpick, this actually leads into an important point - only players on top teams become top players. Sure Huk of Millenium won MLG Raleigh, but would Huk of Millenium be competing in GSL and be widely regarded as one of (if not the) best non-Korean Protoss? No. There is no way that would have happened. Ever.
Most teams apart from the "powerhouses" don't have the infrastructure and the financial backing to support their players in progressing their careers. No matter how much you limit the powerhouses, that won't really change in the foreseeable future. So at the end of the day absolutely nobody benefits from it, because this is what happens:
1) The players on worse teams can't join better teams, because better teams are full = no financial stability and no opportunity to improve. They're stuck with their small semi-pro team that can't support them in being a full-time professional player and their talent goes to waste.
2) Careers of genuinely good players on top teams are damaged because they can't play in their team, and take a major step back if they join a lesser team, so their talent and work they put in goes to waste too. Keep in mind that these may actually be sick good players (eg Haypro).
3) Top teams can't expand their playerbase and produce more top players, hence we have less quality on the scene, fall back further behind Koreans, and end up with a lot of wasted talent.
4) The rule doesn't help smaller teams in any way whatsoever. Sure they get some players in a competition that they wouldn't get if the powerhouses weren't limited, but these players are just going to get rolled in online division stage anyway. No ifs or buts, they will get rolled. The rule doesn't give smaller teams money, it doesn't make sure they can pay their players sufficiently or attract a top player, it doesn't guarantee them sponsors (again, even Root can't get good deals with the stacked lineup they have already), it just lets their players into the brackets even though some of them may not be nearly good enough to be there.
The only superficial benefit is for the league itself, because hey, "they don't want team kills and teammates throwing games to each other". Well the price to pay for that is way too high, considering NASL aims to be the most influential competition in the foreign scene.
On February 24 2011 09:30 Sky0 wrote: I guess you guys don't even realize why they want players on teams. They want teams so they can control the league better and be more financially stable. Instead of dealing with individuals they will deal with the teams leaders so that more people are held accountable for one players actions. it just helps everything to run smoothly and more professionally, I could elaborate but i think you get the point.
Just give the individual players a lesser "security deposit" How many people actually want to oversleep or be BM in the tournament for the hell of it. If they want to though, they lose their 100 dollar safety deposit on themselves. Isn't that easier than punishing the whole team for 1 players BM or tardiness?
On February 24 2011 09:31 Lobo2me wrote: If you're a top 30 player and on a team that fits the criteria of being a team, you should get in. The players should be chosen before the teams play a role, not the other way around with sending invites to 10 teams and going "collect 5 good players each to play in the league".
As I understood in the SOTG interview, this may not be the case. If WhiteRa starts team duckload and 4 nobody's join it (hypothetically) they would see more game time then players in the 6+ positions on EG, Liquid, Mouz, Dignitas, etc. teams OR team duckload wouldn't get selected and one of the top players in the world would be excluded.
On February 24 2011 09:24 RogueStatus wrote: This whole NASL thing is getting old already! Some egos that have proved to be large to begin with, are now only growing. The power tripping that's going on seems to beexcessive for an event that is yet to be established or developed. It's a shame that it could be a real positive thing for the community and it's becoming a political, poplularity driven snob fest.
Yea, the kind of thing that could make idra and team EG some money at the expense of a possibly great league. Now it's clear why he left Korea to cash in on this.
On February 24 2011 09:24 RogueStatus wrote: This whole NASL thing is getting old already! Some egos that have proved to be large to begin with, are now only growing. The power tripping that's going on seems to beexcessive for an event that is yet to be established or developed. It's a shame that it could be a real positive thing for the community and it's becoming a political, poplularity driven snob fest.
Yea, the kind of thing that could make idra and team EG some money at the expense of a possibly great league. Now it's clear why he left Korea to cash in on this.
I think this accusation is unfair. EG is the team most influenced by this limitation, since they are one of the teams with the best depth. If they wanted to give themselves an advantage, they would simply have no limitation and invite all their players.
On February 24 2011 09:47 ScarletKnight wrote: Hm. It seems I may be in the wrong on this topic. Hopefully the NASL team will address this in some way.
On February 24 2011 09:24 RogueStatus wrote: This whole NASL thing is getting old already! Some egos that have proved to be large to begin with, are now only growing. The power tripping that's going on seems to beexcessive for an event that is yet to be established or developed. It's a shame that it could be a real positive thing for the community and it's becoming a political, poplularity driven snob fest.
Yea, the kind of thing that could make idra and team EG some money at the expense of a possibly great league. Now it's clear why he left Korea to cash in on this.
Why be an ass to someone who cares enough about Esports to dedicate his life to being one of the best? You don't do this for the money, you do this because you enjoy the game, the competition and maybe the fame. He sees more opportunity over here to be able to enjoy more tournaments. Please stop degrading EG, they obviously want Esports to grow and flourish in the west.
I used either team websites or the SC2 team list Here on TL (not all of these teams are listed on the TL website).
Oh, and since it is listed on TL, here's one more team:
Duckload Gaming: White-Ra
After looking at the listing on TL there are 40 teams listed there, but some teams I have heard of are not on the list. I did not include any of the Korean teams.
But here's the rub, making the cut down to 50 and limiting the participants to 5 per team might be hard. And I'm not only just talking about making teams having to decide who to send; it's a matter of enough of the smaller teams being able to send someone to the Ro16 if they make it there. Yes, a travel allowance was mentioned, but where are they staying, how long are they staying, and if they are on a team from outside the US the ticket price is high.
Since we've not seen a breakdown of how much money is involved in each place, it might not be feasible for a smaller team to send someone to the Ro16 if there is no money prize in the 8-16 brackets.
NASL might have to scrap the 5 person team limit simply because it might be hard to get enough people with sponsored teams willing to foot their travel expenses.
incontroll used a very telling metaphor with the nba in state of the game this week. he compared his vision for starcraft leagues like the nba, you have to have financial backing a responsibility to be proffesional and other things. i think he used this reasoning to say that, like the draft picks in american football (i dont know about your other college sports) teams are encouraged to be equal, to make the league more exciting year on year, less dominated by a giant team.
but the nasl is still an indevidual league. huk isnt going to refuse to play tyler, and i dont honestly think they would throw a match if they were in the same group. if there was some system of demotion, like in code a, the people who do the worst have to requalify, then no matter how badly person x from team liquid is doing, they wouldnt throw a lose to person y, because it would harm their chances next season.
i also think some easy way of throwing off the "dead" weight is important for any league. maybe ive missed it in the league details but it seems no matter how badly a player does, there seems to be no clear cut way to remove them, and to get new blood in, something crucial for any sport; if they already have plans for this, surely this answers my first point and the team cap makes no sense from a competition stand point.
if they are just worried about too much TLAF-liquid'x then i for one, welcome our new team gaseous overlords
As I understood in the SOTG interview, this may not be the case. If WhiteRa starts team duckload and 4 nobody's join it (hypothetically) they would see more game time then players in the 6+ positions on EG, Liquid, Mouz, Dignitas, etc. teams OR team duckload wouldn't get selected and one of the top players in the world would be excluded.
Am I understanding this correctly?
The teams are not being selected. The individuals are. So even if Team Duckload has white-ra and 4 other unknown people, it does not mean those 5 people make it into the league. The NASL is an individual league and is primarily invitational with 1 out of the 50 spots being open.
In regards to the general OP, I agree with Tyler's points. Having the number of people on a team allowed to enter restricted in an individual league is not something I've seen before in Starcraft E-Sports but I could be wrong. I've looked at how the GSL, OSL. TSL and MSL do things regarding seeds, open spots with qualifiers and the like and I agree with those models more then what the NASL has planned.
I don't understand the hard focus on team in a individual league, i have seen people compare it with NBA and other things like that, but in reality a individual league is like a track race, or ski race, yes you have a team you train with, but in the end you fight for you own victories.
I like Tylers point with that you can have the players from the same team playing vs each-other first, after that, with the "top 50" players in the world playing these divisions should be so even that you cant drop a game to help your team mate out because then you would lose the chance to get to the next stages yourself.
( and btw sorry if this have been said befor, i dident read all the 13 pages ) i love the Nasl ide, but i think Tyler raises some good points here
Further teams: FXO, mtw, ieS, MYM, ESC, aTn, PwR, Prae, srs, ONE, myR, NRG. GosuGamers. Then add the korean teams. The point being, it is not obvious that the five player limit will be a problem short term. There might be problems further ahead, but don't forget that though NASL is a big deal, ESL pumps out a lot more $ into esport competitions. In other words, don't base your predictions of the development of teams solely on the rules of NASL. It will be important, but probably not game changing.
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.
The only part of the 5-man team like I don't like is the choice of the number 5. I understand that they chose 5 because it's convenient for their broadcasting schedule. But it makes no sense for an SC2 team.
It seems to me that an ideal SC2 team would need to have at least 6 people, at least 2 people per race, more if you include randoms. And in reality you'd want more than that, to cover alternates and provide greater training variety. Anything less than that means that at least one of your players won't have a practice partner for a matchup.
On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
I'll agree that the idea of someone needs to be on a team in order to compete is silly. It's counter-productive for people who want to get into the professional-scene and it kind of portrays NASL as an elite league moreso than a convenient one for many North-American players. With the 250$ refundable tax, I agree that the need of being on a team is only showing little faith in the willingness of lone aspiring players. Am I making sense here or what?
I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa?
Why should there be any team strategy? It's not Proleague its a totally individual league with people trying to win prizes for themselves and no one else.
So all top players LOVE eliminating their team mates? Sounds completely reasonable. If you're not on a team.
No... All top players LOVE winning, whether they play a teammate or not.
I used either team websites or the SC2 team list Here on TL (not all of these teams are listed on the TL website).
Oh, and since it is listed on TL, here's one more team:
Duckload Gaming: White-Ra
Cheers.
Based on those lists, here are the players that may be cut off with a limit of 5. This is obviously just speculation based on my own opinion. I'm not trying to rate the players, I'm only using it as an example of what sort of talent will NASL be giving up by enforcing this rule:
TL: likely Haypro or Jinro if he focused exclusively on Korea ROOT: 2 out of Catz, Slush, ddoro EG: 3 out of Incontrol, StrifeCro, LzGamer, Grubby(!) FNATIC: JF or Gretorp (Lucifron doesn't play sc2 actively anymore, right? If he does, then him too) Millenium: Stephano, ToD
I mean sure, it doesn't LOOK like much to give up, but just think of the sort of players that will probably be filling up the brackets instead. You'll get nowhere near the same quality. I mean you might justify it if oGs, ST and IM participated with 5 players each, but I wouldn't hold my breath (and even if they did participate, the principle of "best players get a spot" would still apply better).
What is Nasl definition of a team then? Maybe a teal like TL could eventually field a team of 20 players. Maybe we could see smaller teams be feeder teams for the bigger ones signing contracts for induvidual players for specific seasons.
Or start a B.team. Team liquor.
Maybe someone representing NASL can tell us what their definition of a team is and why they dont want teams to be succesfull.
On February 24 2011 06:15 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Diversity:You want to have a wide variety of teams participating so that this diversity can enhance story lines and the drama of the competition
Just a quick objection, Russ said on SotG, that NASL ideally had 10 teams with 5 players each and that this would be out of the question for season 1, but it stands as a longterm goal.
On February 24 2011 08:38 ReachTheSky wrote: They really need to stop calling this thing a league. Its more like an invitational minus one spot(what a fucking joke). sigh. Whats funny is that this league was never about making esports big. It was about how one person saw how they could make a shitload of money. Yet its for esports!!! rofl what a joke. ALL the players and this community make up esports. Having a purely invite tourny does not benefit esports as a whole. GSL/KPGA/OSL/MSL all had prelims. Prelims that allowed EVERYONE to try their heart out. This is nothing but selection just so you folks can try and make dough. ;/
I'm disappointed in the direction this so called 'esports' is heading. Hopefully you get your act together.
YUP, join me in boycotting giving any money to these guys. We have plenty of good quality content in GSL and MLG on a regular basis, not to mention the Dreamhacks and others....
I'm really disappointed that idra and incontrol are so behind this...
I think it's really unfortunate that because of a rule you don't agree with you're so willing to write off what is a big step towards making esports and SC2 so much bigger in the west. Yes this may not be an ideal situation and perhaps some things need to change, but you know what? Rules aren't set in stone. After these initial seasons, or even after the first, they may further examine how things went and make changes. It's so early right now and throwing this much negativity is really unfair. I'm not saying we should all just smile and agree with absolutely everything but to say all they're doing this for is to make money and that we need to boycott this over something that doesn't effect either of you (forgive me if I'm wrong but you're not the sixth man on a team are you?) is shortsighted and immature. Try using a little positivity and giving some constructive criticism instead of just slinging mud. Maybe people will listen to what you say. Cause reading this, you sound like children.
On February 24 2011 09:24 RogueStatus wrote: This whole NASL thing is getting old already! Some egos that have proved to be large to begin with, are now only growing. The power tripping that's going on seems to beexcessive for an event that is yet to be established or developed. It's a shame that it could be a real positive thing for the community and it's becoming a political, poplularity driven snob fest.
Yea, the kind of thing that could make idra and team EG some money at the expense of a possibly great league. Now it's clear why he left Korea to cash in on this.
Except that EG (The organization) is not involved with this whatso ever.
On February 24 2011 10:24 ThatETmonkey wrote: What is Nasl definition of a team then?
This is something I have been wondering myself. On the FAQ of the NASL site, they have the questions that you are supposed to answer in a video that you send in. They don't have a specific questions asking if the player is on a team. The first questions is asking about the players history in SC2 so i guess thats where people would say what team they are on.
But there is no definition described for what the team that you have to be on is. Does the team have to meet certain requirements? Can I just make a team with my friends and if the team requires a sponsor can I just get anyone to sponsor the team?
There was also something else I read in another thread. The top 4 of the open tournament I believe get seeded into the next season of the league. What if those people are not on a team, do they no get to enter anymore or by getting top 4 are these players placed on a team? Perhaps they have teams that have agreed to recruit the top 4 players so that they are able to play in the next season.
I don't think players should be excluded because they aren't on a known team. When we ran UG tournaments we would have people on high profile teams that didn't show up without any notification at all or at the very last minute, all the time. Being on Team doesn't make individuals more responsible. While possible, it seems highly unlikely that a player given a chance to win thousands of dollars is going to show up late for his match or not all all. If it's about the travel then make the prize pool $390,000 and cover the travel.
I compeletly agree with you tyler, i just think there are so many funny rules and the format is even questionable. i would way prefer to have qualifiers for this tournament to get the best of the best. But if they insist on doing it this way there should be no limit on teams you made numerous excellent points in the SOTG last night. Its really discouraging to think that this tournament should it grow to be a big deal in esports in the west could destroy the way teams are run.
One more thing id like to point out it seems like Fnatic is also running some things behind the scenes for the NASL ( i have no idea how it works) but it seems like EG and Fnatic stand to benifit the most from the NASL and although EG has a stellar lineup and i could not argue that 5 of their players dont deserve to be in the NASL i could defenetly not say the same for Fnatic, if they get 5 seats for their team at the cost of say the 6th member of TL not getting one i would be extremely dissapointed i can name maybe 2 players on their lineup that deserve(?) to be in the NASL any more would be a slap in the face and defenetly shown as favoritism.
I think having a similair format to the GSL in terms of qualifiers for the first 3 seasons and then maybe a and b groups would be much more appealing it has problems of its own but at least you know that you really would be getting some of the best players. There isnt many people in code S in season 5 of the gsl that i would say dont deserve to be there.
Thank you Tyler for calling out the serious flaws in this setup. People that are quick to defend NASL don't even think about how poorly structured and put together it really is.
I truly agree with your point Tyler. There are so many things wrong in the NASL's rules that it really keeps the unknowns from proving themselves. i.e. more like a battle of the famous.
On February 24 2011 08:38 ReachTheSky wrote: They really need to stop calling this thing a league. Its more like an invitational minus one spot(what a fucking joke). sigh. Whats funny is that this league was never about making esports big. It was about how one person saw how they could make a shitload of money. Yet its for esports!!! rofl what a joke. ALL the players and this community make up esports. Having a purely invite tourny does not benefit esports as a whole. GSL/KPGA/OSL/MSL all had prelims. Prelims that allowed EVERYONE to try their heart out. This is nothing but selection just so you folks can try and make dough. ;/
I'm disappointed in the direction this so called 'esports' is heading. Hopefully you get your act together.
YUP, join me in boycotting giving any money to these guys. We have plenty of good quality content in GSL and MLG on a regular basis, not to mention the Dreamhacks and others....
I'm really disappointed that idra and incontrol are so behind this...
I think it's really unfortunate that because of a rule you don't agree with you're so willing to write off what is a big step towards making esports and SC2 so much bigger in the west. Yes this may not be an ideal situation and perhaps some things need to change, but you know what? Rules aren't set in stone. After these initial seasons, or even after the first, they may further examine how things went and make changes. It's so early right now and throwing this much negativity is really unfair. I'm not saying we should all just smile and agree with absolutely everything but to say all they're doing this for is to make money and that we need to boycott this over something that doesn't effect either of you (forgive me if I'm wrong but you're not the sixth man on a team are you?) is shortsighted and immature. Try using a little positivity and giving some constructive criticism instead of just slinging mud. Maybe people will listen to what you say. Cause reading this, you sound like children.
This affects everybody. This isn't some tiny rule at the back of the rulebook. This is a big thing. I will also boycott and never watch a game of the NASL if this rule stays in because I too think its a bit worthless(as someone earlier to warned about) as who knows who is going ones to pick who gets into this league in the first place. This rule makes me really suspicious about the whole thing.
Tyler, I agree with what you say. I was listening to SOTG and the argument about NBA had little to no merit in regards to this this, tennis would have been better to use be that goes into your favor so it probably wouldn't have been used. I'm glad that at least one top player has balls to come out and say it.
I find the biggest reason why the 5 player limit is not good is because hurts the growth of teams. Two examples:
1) Team A has 6 or 7 players and is looking for more good players to improve their roster, so they talk to player X and after seeing him play they invite him to join. X likes the team but declines because it will hurt his chances of joining the NASL since they have more than 5 players. Joining a team should _never_ be detrimental to a player.
2) Team B has 10 players all of whom are good friends and enjoy practicing with each other. However, each one wants to compete in NASL as well. B must now choose 5 players they can send, and the other 5, although they want to stay with the team, decide to leave in order to have a chance at the NASL. The limitation has now effectively broken up a perfectly good team.
I never thought I would say this, but I would rather have extended series than this.
On February 24 2011 08:38 ReachTheSky wrote: They really need to stop calling this thing a league. Its more like an invitational minus one spot(what a fucking joke). sigh. Whats funny is that this league was never about making esports big. It was about how one person saw how they could make a shitload of money. Yet its for esports!!! rofl what a joke. ALL the players and this community make up esports. Having a purely invite tourny does not benefit esports as a whole. GSL/KPGA/OSL/MSL all had prelims. Prelims that allowed EVERYONE to try their heart out. This is nothing but selection just so you folks can try and make dough. ;/
I'm disappointed in the direction this so called 'esports' is heading. Hopefully you get your act together.
YUP, join me in boycotting giving any money to these guys. We have plenty of good quality content in GSL and MLG on a regular basis, not to mention the Dreamhacks and others....
I'm really disappointed that idra and incontrol are so behind this...
I think it's really unfortunate that because of a rule you don't agree with you're so willing to write off what is a big step towards making esports and SC2 so much bigger in the west. Yes this may not be an ideal situation and perhaps some things need to change, but you know what? Rules aren't set in stone. After these initial seasons, or even after the first, they may further examine how things went and make changes. It's so early right now and throwing this much negativity is really unfair. I'm not saying we should all just smile and agree with absolutely everything but to say all they're doing this for is to make money and that we need to boycott this over something that doesn't effect either of you (forgive me if I'm wrong but you're not the sixth man on a team are you?) is shortsighted and immature. Try using a little positivity and giving some constructive criticism instead of just slinging mud. Maybe people will listen to what you say. Cause reading this, you sound like children.
This affects everybody. This isn't some tiny rule at the back of the rulebook. This is a big thing. I will also boycott and never watch a game of the NASL if this rule stays in because I too think its a bit worthless(as someone earlier to warned about) as who knows who is going ones to pick who gets into this league in the first place. This rule makes me really suspicious about the whole thing.
Tyler, I agree with what you say. I was listening to SOTG and the argument about NBA had little to no merit in regards to this this, tennis would have been better to use be that goes into your favor so it probably wouldn't have been used. I'm glad that at least one top player has balls to come out and say it.
Wanna explain to me how it affects you? I'm all ears.
On February 24 2011 11:20 phantaxx wrote: I find the biggest reason why the 5 player limit is not good is because hurts the growth of teams. Two examples:
1) Team A has 6 or 7 players and is looking for more good players to improve their roster, so they talk to player X and after seeing him play they invite him to join. X likes the team but declines because it will hurt his chances of joining the NASL since they have more than 5 players. Joining a team should _never_ be detrimental to a player.
2) Team B has 10 players all of whom are good friends and enjoy practicing with each other. However, each one wants to compete in NASL as well. B must now choose 5 players they can send, and the other 5, although they want to stay with the team, decide to leave in order to have a chance at the NASL. The limitation has now effectively broken up a perfectly good team.
I never thought I would say this, but I would rather have extended series than this.
Good summation. It'd be nice to see an official response to this.
Although really the only response would be to scrap the limit.
has anyone provided a concrete example of how two teammates could collude given that they have to play their match early in the league? for collusion to be an issue a player would have to lose intentionally. i don't see how losing to someone that is not your teammate could help your teammate advance.
Good post. I think the whole belonging to a team requirement is pretty silly anyway. On occasion a good player might be without a team temporarily, that shouldn't matter in sign-ups for an individual league.
What's to stop Tyler, TLO, and Haypro from leaving Team Liquid, forming "Team TTH" (Also sponsored by TLAF, at no cost to them!), playing in the NASL alongside HuK, Ret and Jinro, and rejoining Team Liquid later?
The impression I got from Xeris was that more than 5 players from a team can compete if the additional spots are earned through the open tournament.
I thought this 5 player rule was just an initial guideline for the first season, to insure there was a diverse range of players and fair representation.
It's also a way of sidestepping the logistics of a lengthy, expensive, complex qualification process, while still assuring (roughly) the best players in North America to participate.
After the first three open tournaments, the cream of the crop should rise and hopefully you can say the best 50 players are participating.
It's far from a perfect system, but look at the GSL. Outside the top 24 players, I'd say the remaining 40 players are all jockeying for position with some blatant outliers that got there by luck or chance. This is after investing an insane amount of money and time on three tournies and countless qualifiers.
From purely a management stand-point, I can understand why they went in this direction to launch the league. Hopefully the 5 player per team cap is not a hard and fast rule, and they will adapt if it is obviously hurting the competitiveness of the league.
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.
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.
That isn't how they are going to choose the players, though. It just helps them pick names to look into.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agree so much with Tylers OP, copypaste my reply to the Q&A-thread:
The 5 player / team is a really bad rule imo punishing the best teams and basicly screwing players over. The three teams i can see this affecting the most, who is likely to have more than five players with the skill and dedication to enter and go past the first group stage, is Team Liquid (TLO, Ret, HuK, Jinro, HayPro and Tyler), EG (IdrA, AxSlav, DeMuslim, InControl, LZGames, Machine and possibly Grubby) and Root (Catz, Minigun, Kiwikaki, QXC, Slush and Drewbie).
Looking at this and comparing to your answer: "We want to try to create as even a playing field as possible for teams. This is why we have allocated a maximum of 5. Some teams are not big enough to field five players, but we feel that it's a good idea to have a max of five to get as much diversity as possible."
The harm to diversity would be minimal since we are only talking about it affecting a few teams. I do not think the fans would ever agree on it being a good idea to refuse one of Roots players to enter simply because of diversity, and i feel really bad for whoever you will deny this possibility.
Next argument would be to avoid teamkills, i think any team would argue that it is better to have a teamkill than to have one player not even given the chance due to a rule. And teamkills add some extra drama to the tournament.
The third argument would be to avoid players working together/throwing games in the group stage. This would be the "biggest" reason that i can see, and yet not allowing two palyers in a team in the same grooup does not void this problem. It will always be a problem in group stages, players from different team could be firends, players could throw games to avoid future opponents, throw games to indirectly eliminate players they see as a big threat etc. And since you stated that it might be possible for a team to have 6 players in future leagues you know this aswell.
All in all, it just seems like a bad rule that adds very little positive to the tournament while bringing very much negative to it. Not even Korea have a sceen big enough to support 10 strong teams, and yet this is basicly what you are asking from the western scene from the start, forcing good players to leave a premiere team for a "lesser" one. This does not support a proffesional starcraft scene in any way, this works against it since it is unlikely to fully run a top-notch pro team (giving full eco support to players) with "only" five good players in it.
As someone who watches way more starcraft than actually plays I'd like to think I have the viewpoint that NASL relishes. That of the fan and spectator, the people that that are supporting this massive entity. What it comes down to in the end for me is that I want to be entertained, and I want to see the best of the best duking it out in this tournament. If that means I have to watch 8 guys from one team knock each other out in the first round I have no problem whatsoever with that.
What I do have a problem with is when there are players playing that don't have the skill to duke it out with the best that make it in because we've already reached our quota of elite players. Imagine what GSL Code S would be like if they only allowed 5 players from every team to participate. It would be absolute garbage. Sure we'd see the best players in the world play, but they would be beating on the dredges of the starcraft 2 professional scene. The first few rounds wouldn't be worth watching because we would see a bunch of all ining foU and MVP players get stomped by the MCs and ImMVP's of the world, and no one wants to watch that.
If what the NASL is trying to create here is a league to showcase the best and brightest of the starcraft2 world I think they're making a mistake. I understand trying to make a great league, and creating accountability and all that jazz, but what is happening is the undermining of the quality of games by over regulating the whole tournament. The amount of teams able to field more than 5 players regardless is very low, so I doubt this will be a problem even without the rule.
All this being said I do believe they're trying to do the right thing, but they have to be open to the opinions and criticisms of the community and willing to accommodate to provide the best possible product to its viewers. : )
Seriously don't understand what is stopping players from just forming "teams"
Tyler Qxc Minigun Slush to form a new team and have a makeshift website. I don't see how they can justify putting the 3rd or 4th best player from team ONE or vvv over these guys. Obviously no disrespect to both clans but these are household names with proven track record.
Artificial rules are bad because essentially Competitive starcraft is a one versus one game. Sure you have proleagues but those are like Davis Cup in Tennis. Multiple one versus one games ( or a few 2v2s but no one takes those seriously). You can't compare that to basketball because basketball is a 5v5 game not 1v1 x 5
And with this NASL, it is very unlikely that Liquid or any team in that matter will recruit more and more people. Especially Liquid because they give equal and fair treatment to all members and support them regardless of achievements.
Yeah, I don't see why teams are so important. Or being a sponsored player for that matter.
Sometimes a tournament just needs an ActionJesus to spice things up. Especially when there will be entrance videos that let us get to know the players. Didn't they say on SotG that they wanted something comparable to American Idol? How will they get those videos if all the people who are allowed to play are in the master league, on a sponsored team?
Obviously, the majority of players are going to be on teams anyways. Looking at any recent, notable tournament, you can see that that is true. And sometimes, an amazing player who is looking to get on a really good team (and might not be settling for the small, barely-sponsored ones) needs to win or place very high a big tournament like the NASL to get those team's attention.
I say stop with all the red tape and save the team rules for team leagues.
I guess NASL's reasoning is probably that the added value of one more player from the same team in terms of entertainment value/viewer pull is less than that of a potentially less skilled player from another less represented team, but I don't really see how having many players from the same team really diminishes the value of adding one more (just because there are five other liquid members already in a tournament wont make anyone less excited to see the sixth).
Oh and to be honest, had this been an amateur league with little prize money and less known organizers, people would outrightly call this rule retarded.
Talking about Russels "vision" about the future, with ten team of 5 players each, has he grounded this idea with the current team managers/leaders?
Like talked to Nazghul, Scoots, Catz, maybe korean team leaders etc. to see if it is even a realistic posibility? Meaning sponsors, training, 5 players enough to support one manager, building up an infrastructure around five pleyrs etc. Is this vision grounded with the community and the players or is it something he is trying to force on the community?
And before you say that this does not mean teams will be limited to 5 players realisticly they will, or at least to 5 proffesional players recieving eco support. Look at Counter-Strike teams, how many teams have more players on thier rooster (again, getting the eco support) than get to play?
On February 24 2011 16:50 DND_Enkil wrote: And before you say that this does not mean teams will be limited to 5 players realisticly they will, or at least to 5 proffesional players recieving eco support. Look at Counter-Strike teams, how many teams have more players on thier rooster (again, getting the eco support) than get to play?
isn't that surprising regarding that counter-strike is a 5vs5 team game!?
i don't understand the whole team thing at all from the NASL. first of all, who is the NASL that they now decide how clans should be managed, if a clan can and wants to support more then 5 players it should be totally up to them and their sponsors.
multiple players from 1 clan in 1 group wont cause any problems at all, as long as you shedule their matches against each other for the first playdays where everybody is still in the race.
it's a 1v1 not a team league, it should be all just about individual efforts and skill, not about what jacket a player wears.
and why does a player in an individual league has to be in a team? that makes even less sense, as long as he can pay the 250 bucks buy-in.
On February 24 2011 16:50 DND_Enkil wrote: And before you say that this does not mean teams will be limited to 5 players realisticly they will, or at least to 5 proffesional players recieving eco support. Look at Counter-Strike teams, how many teams have more players on thier rooster (again, getting the eco support) than get to play?
isn't that surprising regarding that counter-strike is a 5vs5 team game!?
i don't understand the whole team thing at all from the NASL. first of all, who is the NASL that they now decide how clans should be managed, if a clan can and wants to support more then 5 players it should be totally up to them and their sponsors.
Exactly my point, in a big way this will mean that it is not a good a idea for SC2 teams to have more than 5 strong players on thier team.
The scene seems to be saturated for the most part, just look at TL opens, very few unknown people past ro16. People get success and then get recruited by teams, artificially limiting that and trying to grow the scene will just come crashing down if the leagues ever stops. People want ESPORTS to be popular, but right now there isn't enough sponsors to make it work, most seem content with financing tournaments and you can't fail them for that, sponsoring a team is way bigger burden (depending on the contract), at least the way I imagine it and you're probably in for a long trip.
And the most stupid thing is that on SOTG they said that if White-Ra doesn't have a team he can't join this league. WTF, seriously? Are you serious? Good thing that he recently made his own team with people who help him with his site if I am not mistaken.
If we can't get rid of the team-requirement and 5-players-per-team rule, maybe a good compromise is to just have a really beefy relegation system--something like bottom 10 get bumped each season (I think it's bottom 4 right now which just seems way too small). That way we can make sure we get rid of the more-garbage players asap. If things settle down after the first few seasons the maybe drop the relegation down to bottom 5 or something. 4 seems too low.
On February 24 2011 11:43 Ribbon wrote: What's to stop Tyler, TLO, and Haypro from leaving Team Liquid, forming "Team TTH" (Also sponsored by TLAF, at no cost to them!), playing in the NASL alongside HuK, Ret and Jinro, and rejoining Team Liquid later?
I posted this before listening to state of the game and learning they were doing exactly this.
I kind of like you, Tyler.
Edit: Why don't they just do what the GSL does? In the GSL, there's a notable difference between 3rd place of a group and 4th. If NASL makes a difference between 6th place in a 10-man group and 7th, it'd help a lot.
You will never get the best players when you have people like white-ra etc and if you dont want a team? you should suffer for that?! and also getting in a team is not the most easy thing to do... all teams are alrdy packed and why would they want more players when its a 5man cap? that is just wrong....
or maybe you could just make your own team and pay some yourself? tho that dosent feel worth it att al...
I agree entirely with Tyler, I'd very much like to see more commentary by big players on the NASL. There seems to be so many rules and restrictions that seem to add very little value, or actually hurt the tournament, and voicing concern seems to get you abused if you are just some unknown person.
Odd logic, considering, I an unknown person, am the likely consumer of their products. Surely a tournament that wants to make ESPORTS big in the west should be listening to their viewers. It doesn't even matter if everyone was wrong, and that teams were the best idea ever, if viewers don't like it, then it's not a good idea.
On February 24 2011 19:13 faseman wrote: Teams should have nothing to do with an indivdual tournament. I don't know why they muddied the waters with such a strange rule.
A million times this.
I really don't understand why they are choosing to make NASL a team league. Sure the individual will win the tournament, but having this 5 person per team rule and then saying people who are in the tournament have to be apart of a team is making this league a team league. There's no sugar-coating about it. NASL is a team league and it just feels wrong for it to be that way. I am almost positive just having the $250 deposit would be enough for legitimacy of a player showing up on time, I don't think a lot of people would be willing to just throw away $250 to not show up to a game. Heck you could probably even make it $400 if you felt like SC2 semi-pro and pro-gamers are that irresponsible.
On February 24 2011 19:13 faseman wrote: Teams should have nothing to do with an indivdual tournament. I don't know why they muddied the waters with such a strange rule.
I listened to sotg yesterday and tyler asked the same things. He got an answer and now he starts a thread on his teams website to ask the same thing again? Didnt you read the other thread and could imagine how this would end? And i really think the MODS should step up their game considering that this thread has morphed into a discussion with people infusing pure flame and pure hate. Noone gets banned for implying or even saying directly that eg, fnatic, incontrol or idra are working behind the scenes just to make a tournament they have a huge advantage in. Or other theories that imply that those rules are just there to give teamliquid a disadvantage.
I love this website and i love the team and i will support them in any tournament there is. But what you guys are doing right now does not make you look good. If you want to lead this discussion in the open with the participation of YOUR (teams) community than this does not seem like a professional way to begin with, but it could work out as long as you and your moderating stuff make sure that it stays a discussion and not a bashthread with accusations that could not be more ridiculous. In my opinion you have a huge responsibilty to make this a real discussion.
I DONT want to imply that Tyler or Nazghul themselves are doing anything else but leading a discussion, but as soon as they say something negative about the rules, the bandwagoning begins and it gets out of hand.
I agree with your argument Tyler. This rule might not be the best way to go, because it could have negative effects on teams. Everything you said in your discussion yersterday on stog and in the op is also my concern. I would really like to see a different format for this league. Maybe they will change the rules after a few seasons. Maybe not. BUT you and Nazghul should try to discuss those things with the tournament organisers directly and in the backround. This thread and the thread before where Nazghul answered openly became mostly a thread for bashing everything about the new tournament that could be possibly bashed. Because some people seem to be thinking that its ok to take their words and turn them into the extreme.
I really hope you can turn this thread around, because there are a lot of very good arguments against this rule. And even though i dont think this is the best way to go about the issue, i still think it could work as a discussion to collect good points and present them to the tournament organisation.
i agree with tyler on this 1. I woudnt say it is conspiricy against TL, but i think that they are afraid tomuch people will join 1 good team (like TL atm).
Or it is just that EG whas sick of the badluck they had in MLG with the Machine vs incontrol.
Correct me if i am wrong, but teams like oGs, IM, TSL, Prime and TL all have more than 5 fairly good players right? witch would mean alot of teams out korea woudnt be able to compete here @ full force. The money will be epic and EG will have a bigger shot @ the pricepool this way (along with other teams ofc!) but it isnt how i would like to see it.
I listened to sotg yesterday and tyler asked the same things. He got an answer and now he starts a thread on his teams website to ask the same thing again? Didnt you read the other thread and could imagine how this would end? And i really think the MODS should step up their game considering that this thread has morphed into a discussion with people infusing pure flame and pure hate. Noone gets banned for implying or even saying directly that eg, fnatic, incontrol or idra are working behind the scenes just to make a tournament they have a huge advantage in. Or other theories that imply that those rules are just there to give teamliquid a disadvantage.
I love this website and i love the team and i will support them in any tournament there is. But what you guys are doing right now does not make you look good. If you want to lead this discussion in the open with the participation of YOUR (teams) community than this does not seem like a professional way to begin with, but it could work out as long as you and your moderating stuff make sure that it stays a discussion and not a bashthread with accusations that could not be more ridiculous. In my opinion you have a huge responsibilty to make this a real discussion.
I DONT want to imply that Tyler or Nazghul themselves are doing anything else but leading a discussion, but as soon as they say something negative about the rules, the bandwagoning begins and it gets out of hand.
I agree with your argument Tyler. This rule might not be the best way to go, because it could have negative effects on teams. Everything you said in your discussion yersterday on stog and in the op is also my concern. I would really like to see a different format for this league. Maybe they will change the rules after a few seasons. Maybe not. BUT you and Nazghul should try to discuss those things with the tournament organisers directly and in the backround. This thread and the thread before where Nazghul answered openly became mostly a thread for bashing everything about the new tournament that could be possibly bashed. Because some people seem to be thinking that its ok to take their words and turn them into the extreme.
I really hope you can turn this thread around, because there are a lot of very good arguments against this rule. And even though i dont think this is the best way to go about the issue, i still think it could work as a discussion to collect good points and present them to the tournament organisation.
If you check the early NASL details and NASL Q&A threads the issue was brought up by plenty of others before SotG even aired.
Showing NASL that there is an opposition towards this rule might be the best way to make them change it. But yeah i agree that people accusing NASL or the people behind them for favorism before we even know who are invited is bad.
And as most posters point out, this is not as simple as a rule that is punishing Team Liquid, frankly if it was i would be fine with it since apart from jinro my favorite team is Root... It is the deeper meaning behind it i do not like.
Anyways, from the www.nasl.tv website under about nasl they say this:
"Third, we will listen to our audience. The community never ceases to amaze us with its ingenuity and determination. We think if we keep you close, we can’t go wrong. And last of all, we must remember why we do this: for the love of the game. "
So i hope the show this right away and change the rule.
Fully agree with tyler on this 1 (i actually brought it up in the state of the game topic yesterday and got replys like ''get 400k and make your own tournament'').
To me, this whole strange teamrule thing at the NASL just doesn't seem to be thought to the end (if one can say that in english, no native speaker here -.-). Basically Tyler is right. The one reason this rule might do anything worthwhile is the Collusion thing. And this can easily be solved by having play teammates on the first playdays and of course spreading them as much as possible. At SotG incontrol and i believe Idra said, that people could still help teammates by influencing results at the later playdays against players on other teams, but be honest: how? They can of course try to win to help a teammate that is competing for the same spot as their opponent, but that is what they should do anyways and is the grounding of every competetive tournament / league / whatever. And they can loose on purpose but I dont see a scenario where having your opponent win will help one of your teammates get a spot for the ro16 or remain a NASL player. Trying to get three people to tie for a spot also seems pretty unreasonable, because what can very well happen is simply both teammates dont get to play the playoffs, and the third player from another team is the only one getting any benefit from it. Just as an example, the german ESL Pro Series especially for WC3 (there has only been one season of SC2 in this very league format) has had similar problems. They also ran a league, everybody played everyone, the top 4 go to the offline playoffs. And of course there were teams with multiple players in the league. But they simply solved the problem with having teammates play on the first day and never had to bother with it again. Of course it is another game and the league was way smaller in terms of players and pricepool, but it shows you do not need to constrict the number of players per team. All in all, I think the idea to avaoid collusion is important and 100% necessary, but I don't agree with the way NASL tries to implement it. Then, Tylers arguments about diversity and accountability seem to be enough to show the negative parts of the rule already and i can completely follow his thoughts there, but I'd like to add another one ( or expand on a few points i guess ): The assumption to have 10 or more well run teams with good sponsors and a good management just seems a bit utopic for the western world of esports right now. Of course, if you look at SC1 in Korea, they had that many. But in the western world esports is becoming a bigger thing now, but it is not as big yet to attract sponsors that are not directly connected to esports. Plus, western esports is far more internatioal, leaving us mostley with sponsors that are interested in selling internationally. After all, it is very difficult for teams to attract enough sponsors and / or sponsors willing to spend enough money to really become a professional team. At the time, the teams that are able to provide a professional management, the possibility to travel to large events like the MLG or Dreamhack and may even be able to pay a little sallary are problably Mousesports, EG, TL and probably fnatic(?!), maybe dignitas as well. SK and MYM do have the infrastructure i think (also there have been problems with MYM in the past) but do not have a strong SC2 team yet. In all honesty, I cannot see this list expanding to much in the future. Now for players there are still differences between these teams: The sallary may differ? Maybe you dont get along well with your Teammates und Team A, but you are frriends with players of Team B? Team C may have some kind of teamhouse in Korea, making it much easier to do this trip to the GSL you always wanted to do? Then, on Team B there are mostley Americans while you live in Europe, making it harder to train with your teammates? These are all possible reasons why a player may choose on team over the other. The 5 Player per Team rule takes a large chunk away from that and intruduces a new, arbitrary factor: Can i play on this huge league on this team? Can I get a spot? And then, if the NASL will be this super huge thing (which i hope it will be), players will join less professional teams, with teammates they may or maynot like, is not offering the possibility to go to Korea or whatever else. The point is, this will not help smaller teams as much as NASL thinks it will, because becoming a one of the big players in esports is much more than having good people on your team. Thats my take on it, became quit a wall of text and the last part is probably a little sloppy, but hey, I m getting tiered here. It just seems very unfair against larger teams. Also, I cant see esports growing because of this rule. And the main reason for its implementation, collusion, is just simply not a reason at all. After all, I think the NASL is a great thing. Its a big opportunity for western esports. I would just like them to be big in every regard, without stupid rules the community will fight about for the rest of existance. Like extended series.
Still, keep up the great work @ NASL, i m looking forward to the first season -.-
Well in the sport world they would limit teams from stacking by salary caps but obviously starcraft isn't there yet, I'd suspect that most players that will enter for the first 3-4 seasons are largely unpaid cept for prize money.
In Korea, I'm sure KESPA exerts some control, arguably too much, so that they don't end up with a Yankees team. (American Baseball reference)
Since they can't do either, why is it unreasonable for them to exert some way to make sure that the regular/ladder part of a season has a large variety of teams*? It even encourages team leagues.
On February 24 2011 09:24 RogueStatus wrote: This whole NASL thing is getting old already! Some egos that have proved to be large to begin with, are now only growing. The power tripping that's going on seems to beexcessive for an event that is yet to be established or developed. It's a shame that it could be a real positive thing for the community and it's becoming a political, poplularity driven snob fest.
Yea, the kind of thing that could make idra and team EG some money at the expense of a possibly great league. Now it's clear why he left Korea to cash in on this.
I think this accusation is unfair. EG is the team most influenced by this limitation, since they are one of the teams with the best depth. If they wanted to give themselves an advantage, they would simply have no limitation and invite all their players.
On February 24 2011 09:47 ScarletKnight wrote: Hm. It seems I may be in the wrong on this topic. Hopefully the NASL team will address this in some way.
I concede my arguments. ^^
Haha :>
Have they honestly got the best depth though? Idra is their main player, Demuslim is good, and the rest are just average and are regularly beaten by random people. I bet if this wasn't an invitational only Idra and Demuslim would qualify.
I agree Tyler, and I'm really glad you took the time to make this post because listening to SotG I could tell that you were unsatisfied with NASL's response to your question about this point. I was too.
One obvious point that I don't think was stressed enough on SotG or in the OP here is that this rule will necessarily prevent NASL from hosting the best 50 players in the world. Geoff made the argument that there are no other teams but Liquid` with a solid 6th man, but I see every 6th and 7th man on the more established non-Korean teams as at least capable of proving himself by playing in NASL. Now that guy doesn't have a shot at all. And what about the Korean teams? I feel like NASL almost presumed, when crafting this rule, that they would not be interested in participating. Each major Korean team has more than five guys who might be in the top 50 players in the world.
We only need to look to OSL/MSL to see that leaving the number of players per team capped isn't tournament-breaking.
Their logic and reasoning for having it capped at 5 players per team is seriously flawed, unless as someone mentioned they have another reason other than scheduling and stopping collusion for having it.
There are plenty of players that are not in the top 50 that will make it into this "star league". If they really want the best 50 players they need to suck it up and admit they were wrong and be men about it. Listen to the community and adjust their ruling.
I think upping the security deposit to $500 is an acceptable compromise to allow the best of the best to play ensuring no funny business
EDIT: Okay, so what I said was misconstrued so I'll reiterate it again in a more understandable fashion. I believe in the idea that tournaments are supposed to show who the best players are, which should be their ultimate goal. Allowing people to get easier paths in or barring top players in favor of lesser players makes a tournament "worthless" in terms of attaining that goal. It just comes down to what you look for in the winner of a major NA tourney -- the best player, or the best player who was allowed to compete due to unfortunately planned out rules.[/QUOTE]
Tournaments are supposed to show the best player on that day, but leagues are supposed to show continued competition between mainstay factions which have a player following.
I totally agree with the goal of Fostering a team environment in SC2... particularly in the west as its what mainstream sporting enthusiasts are used to. Franchises and coaches and players.
On February 24 2011 10:01 ziggymondais wrote: EG: Machine, Idra, Incontrol, Demuslin, Axslav, LzGamer, Strifecro
Will Incontrol be playing as well as running things? Conflict of interest?
You read about his position in this league right? Its the same thing as saying that Artosis should not be allowed to play in the GSL. Its true that incontrol has a few more tasks in this project, but nothing that would allow him to influence the chances of him succeeding in the tournament.
One important tidbit to remember is that this doesn't start until April. Things could completely change in that time.
The only argument that I agree with is that for this league to obtain the amount of success that it wants is to have the 50 best players possible compete. If this rule prohibits someone like haypro from competing because a lesser player from another team is allowed, that hurts the tournament. I understand the logic they used when coming up with the 5 person limit per team and 5 divisions. But I'll be a lot less likely tuning into to seeing a lesser known player play from a team than I would have been if someone like Haypro was playing.
On February 24 2011 10:01 ziggymondais wrote: EG: Machine, Idra, Incontrol, Demuslin, Axslav, LzGamer, Strifecro
Will Incontrol be playing as well as running things? Conflict of interest?
iNc doesn't run things, hes just the main caster. Like how Artosis doesn't run GSL yet tries to qualify.
Isnt Inc a bit more than the "caster for the unimportant English stream"? Or is Artosis more involved in GSL/GOM (that I dont know of)?
More on topic: I understand that they might fear that we get 1 powerhouse team which recruits all good people and rocks the league without competition. Like 10+ people. But there doesnt exist such a team atm. So just clarify that you look down upon such behaviour and that you will implement rules which prevents such things, if a team tries to do this.
Also what about people who are on multiple teams (i.e. Torch @ ST & VT)? Can ST field 5 players, and can Torch play as a member of VT? So basically ST has 6 players in the league? At the moment we dont have a lot of players on multiple teams (because of brand/team/sponsor recognition) - but if it would be benefitial - why not create "mirror" teams with identical rosters/sponsors? You wouldnt even have to leave your original team (in regards of teamleagues) and can circumvent the system.
Overall I dont like restrictions on what players can participate (5 players / team, you need a team) - it almost feels like a "pro gaming license" - kespaish to me.
On February 25 2011 02:13 Zocat wrote: Isnt Inc a bit more than the "caster for the unimportant English stream"? Or is Artosis more involved in GSL/GOM (that I dont know of)?
GSL also has less to worry about because they actually had open tournaments for qualifiers. Even if you are worried Artosis was in a secret position of power the most he could have done was fix brackets. It's automatically going to add to the bad perception of NASL when you have arbitrary selections combined with players in the tournament also representing the league, regardless of what truly happens behind the scenes.
Ultimately though, just because GSL does it doesn't mean much, it has been a very good thing for the GSL English stream that Artosis hasn't qualified since season one.
On February 24 2011 10:01 ziggymondais wrote: EG: Machine, Idra, Incontrol, Demuslin, Axslav, LzGamer, Strifecro
Will Incontrol be playing as well as running things? Conflict of interest?
You read about his position in this league right? Its the same thing as saying that Artosis should not be allowed to play in the GSL. Its true that incontrol has a few more tasks in this project, but nothing that would allow him to influence the chances of him succeeding in the tournament.
There's a less ambiguous hierarchy of command for GSL. At least I doubt on some Korean forum there's 3 guys contradicting each other on how the tournament operates, for example. From the limited amount of stuff we've heard from Russ I would imagine he relies greatly on Incontrol's input, as well as Xeris and whoever else. But we can all agree that a) Inc is very opinionated and b) he has quite a bit of say in how things go
I agree with everyone's points but i feel like your expectations for the first North American league is way too high. Nothing is perfect the first go around. I think we should give the NASL a season to see how it plays out. If many of the games are bad, the player pool is 'below average', people dont show, ect. then it is evidence that the system is flawed.
The next best thing is make a serious proposal that discusses the NASL's limitations, and more importantly, a way to fix them.
On February 24 2011 10:01 ziggymondais wrote: EG: Machine, Idra, Incontrol, Demuslin, Axslav, LzGamer, Strifecro
Will Incontrol be playing as well as running things? Conflict of interest?
You read about his position in this league right? Its the same thing as saying that Artosis should not be allowed to play in the GSL. Its true that incontrol has a few more tasks in this project, but nothing that would allow him to influence the chances of him succeeding in the tournament.
There's a less ambiguous hierarchy of command for GSL. At least I doubt on some Korean forum there's 3 guys contradicting each other on how the tournament operates, for example. From the limited amount of stuff we've heard from Russ I would imagine he relies greatly on Incontrol's input, as well as Xeris and whoever else. But we can all agree that a) Inc is very opinionated and b) he has quite a bit of say in how things go
Wow you really dont stop this bs do you? As far as i know Xeris calls the shots. But since i dont know anything that goes on in the background i cant even comment on that. I could be wrong. But sure they guys who decided to start the first huge league in north america are going to cheat their main caster into the final. Why should they care about their reputation. Noone would even notice right? Are you kidding me or are you really that ignorant? You just pull shit out of your ass and present it as facts. If your arguments are based on that than i dont even know how to answer this. Maybe ill pull something out of my ass too. Something that is so ridiculous that every sane person should know its bs. How about i start insulting Tyler by saying that he just makes such a big fuss about this because he is afraid he might not get the 5th spot. Since Haypro and him have the least to show for themselves in SC2 one of them could be eliminated. I bet Tyler is afraid and so he starts this discussion. I have found my perfect ignorant conspiracy theory. Do you realise what i just did? I made shit up ... thats right. Do you call this discussing?
I am not just talking about you. There are enough people in this thread that insulted everyone that is involved in this league that i dont even wonder that neither xeris nor incontrol are willing to discuss this thing any further. Maybe they decided to do this non-publicly which would mean this thread was a success. Maybe it was the opposite and they will stop listening to discussions about this topic any further, because people will just insult them with the most ridiculous bs a person could come up with.
On February 25 2011 05:24 BlueFlames wrote: Wow you really dont stop this bs do you? As far as i know Xeris calls the shots. But since i dont know anything that goes on in the background i cant even comment on that. I could be wrong.
Since you don't know anything, and we don't know anything, the question was asked. I think the question is perfectly valid and deserves and answer. iNcontrol is the public face of NASL (his words), not just a caster on a secondary foreign language stream. iNcontrol has been part of the decision making process so far. NASL needs to bend over backwards to ensure there isn't any hint of favoritism towards their own employees. It will be a deathblow to this esport if sponsors fear that NASL is giving their own employees any kind of advantage.
Will NASL management/employees be allowed to compete in their own tournament? How will NASL ensure there is no conflict of interests?
I love the idea of the 5 man per team rule (ie it makes it very easy to seed the tournament in a way that teammates will not play each other in the round robin portion of the tournament), but I do not think rules pertaining to teams have any place in an individual tournament.
I believe that there is a much easier way to keep teams and players in general and it has already been put in place by the NASL: Fines!
If any individual is found in anyway to be colluding or helping teamates/friends advance by throwing a match fine them and maybe even ban them from the next event. This makes it much more straight forward and easier to follow!
As many people have said before (yes I actually read the 18 previous pages) this is an individual league. Treat every player the same and as individuals. When the NASL starts their team league, which I am sure will follow, then they can start worrying about teams.
The OP makes the argument very well and I hope it is listened to.
One more point is that there is already a possibility of more than 5 players from a team being in season 2. If a team has 5 players that do well enough in season 1 to not be relegated, then a 6th member can qualify for season 2 through the open tournament (and the other unannounced means).
In this scenario, I can't believe that they would kick one of the original 5 out, or refuse the 6th member who did well in the open.
So, if it is possible for 6 members of a team to be in the league for season 2, why is there a restriction in season 1?
My opinion is that the NASL adopts the gsl 1 - 3 method. Have huge individual tournaments and let the best man win. I would pay $25 for that in a heart beat. Also, make the replays available AFTER the current season to the subscribers. Win win.
Keep the "fine" and rules in place and you have a HUGE opportunity for good games.
I think it's worth pointing out that the "must have a team" rule basically does nothing to prevent players from entering.
In the Q&A thread Xeris said there definition of a team is 1 or more players under a single banner that have a website (because WhiteRa has one) and the ability to pay to fly players to the ro16.
I have enough money in my bank account for a plane ticket to LA, so I could put a tag in front of my name and make a website and be eligible under their definition.
The definition was obviously tailored specifically so they could include both WhiteRa and Root. If they said you had to have more than 1 player, WhiteRa would be ineligible. If they said you have to be sponsored, every Root player would be ineligible.
The result of bending their definition like this is that it functionally excludes no one. If I was good enough to be in the NASL but without a team, the only thing this rule would do is force me to jump through some stupid hoops.
Why do NBA teams have salary caps? If you have all the money in the world, why can't a team spend it on all the best players? WHY WHY WHY?
Why do all NCAA teams abide by a universal maximum on scholarships per team? In NCAA track&field and swimming, why is there a maximum number of allowable athletes that any university can send to the national championships? ITS JUST NOT FAIR WHEN MORE THAN THE MAX HAVE QUALIFIED TO GO!!!
i quit sports cuz its just toooo tough in the places i don't like it! QQ
On February 25 2011 17:06 JustAnotherKnave wrote: Why do NBA teams have salary caps? If you have all the money in the world, why can't a team spend it on all the best players? WHY WHY WHY?
Why do all NCAA teams abide by a universal maximum on scholarships per team? In NCAA track&field and swimming, why is there a maximum number of allowable athletes that any university can send to the national championships? ITS JUST NOT FAIR WHEN MORE THAN THE MAX HAVE QUALIFIED TO GO!!!
i quit sports cuz its just toooo tough in the places i don't like it! QQ
Those things are competitions between teams/universities and starcraft tournaments are competitions between individuals.
while representing their teams, track athletes and swimmers compete for themselves... teammates race each other when necessary and only one can stand at the top of the podium.
alright, i was trying to use examples from other sports for evidence of reforms made during the 20th century that seem similar to the contentious point of this post's author, but let me get to the brass tacks: team liquid is obviously the western uberpower of starcraft and it would do great harm to the tournament if liquid oversaturated the brackets with both skill AND presence.
I think the problem here is that when the rules were created they didn't ask enough people to review them and they didn't kill their darlings.
The rules is personally biased towards someones likings because it's not intuitive and it brings my thoughts to the problems with KESPA. The community does not want benched players from our favorite teams and we don't want our favorite solo players to join crappy ones
On February 24 2011 06:27 Torte de Lini wrote: Overall, I feel that nobody wins with your criticisms (you also didn't make any specific solutions. Should they just scrap a lot of what you suggested?). Players lose with these limitations, teams lose with these limitations, the league loses if they remove some or all forms of accountability or attempt to diversify the teams.
Well, I'm just saying I don't understand the existence of these rules related to teams for an individual league. I think there are two rules, the first being one team can't have more than 5 people invited, and the second being that you must be on a team to participate. I bring up the 3 (kind of 4) issues that are surrounding these 2 rules and argue that the rules aren't helping the issues. So I'm just saying I still don't understand why they have these rules and I'm implying that they shouldn't have these rules.
I'll agree that the idea of someone needs to be on a team in order to compete is silly. It's counter-productive for people who want to get into the professional-scene and it kind of portrays NASL as an elite league moreso than a convenient one for many North-American players. With the 250$ refundable tax, I agree that the need of being on a team is only showing little faith in the willingness of lone aspiring players. Am I making sense here or what?
I think the 5 people invited is fine. My comparison here is going to be nit-picked and wrong and to be honest, I'm inviting you to do so. But I feel it's not different than having some players sit on the bench in a baseball match. It also creates more strategy for the team managers: we just recruited this new players, he's not very well-known and I'm confident in his ability to win, I'm going to send him in the NASL with two other aggressive Terrans and a conservative Protoss. My from your standpoint, it may seem unfair, but I think there are a lot of what ifs in there and to be honest, do the pros way out the cons or vice-versa?
The baseball match analogy is a horrible one, because a player being on the bench for one match does not mean he will be benched for the entire season. Its also similar to the Shinhan proleague where the player lineup is different for each match. Players do not mind being benched for individual matches. But they will be disappointed when they are bunched for an entire season.
Have to agree with Tyler. The GSL has no restrictions on teams, in theory (though we aren't there yet) the top 64 players are in GSL......IM, oGs, fOu and others have had more than 5 players competing and its never caused any problems, atleast if it has then its never been brought to our attention.
And, the fact you HAVE to be on a team means someone like WhiteRa, definately amongst the top players outside Korea, can't compete because he has a private sponsor. How is that fair? If WhiteRa wanted to be on a team, he could be, it seems thats not the case and yet if he wants to compete in NASL he must find a team and take on a contract that he might not like or want, just to compete...... thats even worse.
If a player is good enough, has the $250 and the ability to attend the live finals, then thats all that should matter. I feel bad for whomever the 6th TL player is, I feel bad for TL to have to make that decision, I feel bad for WhiteRa who isn't allowed to compete because of some arbitrary rule.
WhiteRa has a personal sponsor, which means he is waaaay more accountable to them than Tyler is to TLAF for instance. Tyler could get away with a few mistakes because he is on a team, its not just him that represents TLAF, WhiteRa has no such luxury. If WhiteRa didn't turn up or was late all the time, he would have lost his sponson by now. He doesn't do that, he is a great ambassador for SC2, and he is left out in the cold by the biggest tourney outside of Korea simply because he isn't one of the cool kids on a real team.
I guess WhiteRa's Team (yes one exists, its a community thing) will have to actually have to sign whitera so he can say he's on a team.
I like how ppl like to say "lets make esports grow" But majority of the tournaments have the same people in it Theres nothing wrong with that, but how is Esports suppose to grow when its just the same ppl competiting/being invited.
It gives "lesser" named people barely a chance to get there name out there TSL3 has been great @ getting more people into the qualifiers, earning points etc etc. There are so many lesser names winning TSL qualifiers because the tourny is set up perfectly. It opens up esports to everyone, instead of only "pro's". GSL, anyone could of went to korea to try-out.
Where as NASL is just PRO teams and thats all. I believe theres more talent out there but are discouraged by the lack of opportunities.
I know theres ton of small prize money tournys, but when something like this (nasl) comes out its huge, but at the same time limiting Esports exposure.
Nony,tlo,jinro,huk,ret,haypro and nazgul i want to see them all(and some EG and mouz players).i dont want to see worse players then these guys. allowing only 5 players a team.why?i dont understand this decision. why not change the format of nasl?
I doubt anyone will see this post on the 18th page, but the previous pages were quite homogeneous and thus this idea at least deserves a chance to be heard. We should look at empirical evidence from other similar leagues that impose a cap.
It's difficult to find a major sport that has team caps due to the fact that the structure of SC2 is different. In some sports individuals compete and in others teams, there are very few in which teams support individuals. I can think of two, and these deserve to be analyzed. Let me start it off.
Formula 1 has teams like Ferrari supporting individuals such as Alonso. The individuals would have no chance whatsoever alone (which is trivially true in NASL due to the team constraint) and the league maintains a two person cap per team. I think the reason for this is the strong collusion between teammates but perhaps someone here knows more about the rationale behind that rule.
The second "sport" I know that imposes this is debating. Most debate tournaments have a "team cap" for "clubs" or "universities" on registration. This is imposed because debating is to a large extent educational (one learns more from debating with different people) and, also, the people funding like to see diversity because companies like different people to learn about their products and governments and NGO's want multiple strata of society to benefit from their support. Collusion does not play a part, but one last fear is that if strong clubs dominate, then smaller teams will not be born. And when one wishes to introduce people to an activity (and let's be honest, the only people following debating are debaters themselves) then one needs to support a large number of communities. The quality might be damaged (we all want to hear Oxford Union debaters, very few wish to hear Kiev (except for me)) but there is a positive effect on the community and sustainability of the activity.
I think TeamLiquid might need to bite the bullet and accept that their team will suffer and that the quality of games might be lower, but this will in fact be good for the SC2/esports community.
On February 26 2011 00:53 br0fivE wrote: I like how ppl like to say "lets make esports grow" But majority of the tournaments have the same people in it Theres nothing wrong with that, but how is Esports suppose to grow when its just the same ppl competiting/being invited.
It gives "lesser" named people barely a chance to get there name out there TSL3 has been great @ getting more people into the qualifiers, earning points etc etc. There are so many lesser names winning TSL qualifiers because the tourny is set up perfectly. It opens up esports to everyone, instead of only "pro's". GSL, anyone could of went to korea to try-out.
Where as NASL is just PRO teams and thats all. I believe theres more talent out there but are discouraged by the lack of opportunities.
I know theres ton of small prize money tournys, but when something like this (nasl) comes out its huge, but at the same time limiting Esports exposure.
my rant
I think you may have a different definition of "let's make esports grow" than most people do. You seem to think of it in terms of accessiblity to players, while most other people think of it as making the broadcasting of competitive video games more mainstream/accessible.
In that case, NASL is right to invite the top/well known players to their tournament simply because that would attract more initial viewers.
The points that you make are valid, and I don't think that they will fall on deaf ears. As far as I know, the transistion between season 1 and season 2 of NASL has not been announced yet. It could be that there will be open tournaments to replace the players that performed poorly during season 1. There are just a lot of unknowns at this point and it's a little premature to start ranting about things that may or may not be true. Just chill. You're in Tyler's blog.
On February 26 2011 01:57 Ghanburighan wrote: I think TeamLiquid might need to bite the bullet and accept that their team will suffer and that the quality of games might be lower, but this will in fact be good for the SC2/esports community.
I don't understand how having lower quality games could be good for the community.
Okay, yeah, the giant tournament might be good for the community, but the point is that it could be better.
Having more one-sided games is unlikely to appeal to an audience as opposed to having more spectacular games.
To be honest I never understood why being on a team was required. It's going to make it that much harder for players not on teams to bust into the scene. And where do people like WhiteRa fit into this? He's got sponsors, but he's not technically on a team (I think?), but he's an absolutely incredible player who should be playing in the NASL.
I dunno. It seems like an arbitrary restriction that is just going to create more problems than it solves, same with the "5 players/team" thing. When I heard the discussion on SOTG it sounded like Tyler raised some good objections and Geoff and Russ didn't really have good answers to them, unfortunately.
On February 26 2011 01:57 Ghanburighan wrote: I think TeamLiquid might need to bite the bullet and accept that their team will suffer and that the quality of games might be lower, but this will in fact be good for the SC2/esports community.
I have yet to see a single argument supporting that statement (that it will be good for the sc2 community).
My biggest issue with this rule is that the NASL is an individual league, seeking to have the best players in it, but decide to let players in both based on skill and what team they're on.
Liquid has six strong players. I would argue any liquid player is at least better than one of any 5 VT players (not to pick on VT - TL's just nasty) - and now the quality of the tournament is lowered by a rule that is an attempt to stop team mates from hitting each other and fixing results. Tyler's ideas are a fine alternative, and don't damage the overall quality of players in the tourney.
Players should get in the NASL based on individual merit, not on the rather arbitrary number of how many good players their are on their team
I don't know much about the sponsorship side of sponsoring a team or a player, but what if NASL was designed to promote more sponsoring of well known teams. With the amount of viewership sponsers may look toward this structure and want to sponsor a team because I think sponsoring a team may look more attractive then sponsoring an individual player. And by NASL limiting the number of team members now, in the future more teams may become sponsored and open up more oppurtunities for a sponsored team league.
On February 26 2011 05:29 Gentleman7 wrote: My biggest issue with this rule is that the NASL is an individual league, seeking to have the best players in it, but decide to let players in both based on skill and what team they're on.
Liquid has six strong players. I would argue any liquid player is at least better than one of any 5 VT players (not to pick on VT - TL's just nasty) - and now the quality of the tournament is lowered by a rule that is an attempt to stop team mates from hitting each other and fixing results. Tyler's ideas are a fine alternative, and don't damage the overall quality of players in the tourney.
Players should get in the NASL based on individual merit, not on the rather arbitrary number of how many good players their are on their team
I completely agree. Just heard about this issue on the most recent SOTG and I agreed so strongly with Tyler that I just had to find his thread and support his argument/the discussion as a whole.
An individual league should be exactly that -- individual. Team kills are unfortunate sure, but it's just a part of the game. It's not a team league, so there shouldn't be any rules based on the completely separate construct of a team.
---------------
In the end, I'd rather have collusion than exclusion.
Somebody should make a poll to get the community's feel on this issue, because, after all isn't the NASL supposed to be about what's best for the community? Wasn't that the whole idea?
Collusion is guaranteed in any tournament offering prizes of any value. It doesn't matter what 'team' the person is on. Every serious professional in any major competitive scene has friends (and possibly enemies) within that professional scene, and the team they are on doesn't necessarily dictate who they'd be willing to collude with. For example, a person from Team A might lose on purpose to help someone else from Team B because they've known each other from 10 years of SC:BW gaming. Nothing can prevent that.
The Team restriction is guaranteed exclusion which only has the loose appreance of preventing collusion. It does nothing to truly prevent collusion because nothing truly can.
That being said, I recognize that the NASL has some unique challenges ahead of it and hopefully the people running it continue to be flexible regarding their rules as they move forward. It does appear they have put tremendous thought into how to put this thing together and I think it is more fair to judge it with more scrutiny after the first season concludes.
On February 26 2011 05:50 McFly wrote: I don't know much about the sponsorship side of sponsoring a team or a player, but what if NASL was designed to promote more sponsoring of well known teams. With the amount of viewership sponsers may look toward this structure and want to sponsor a team because I think sponsoring a team may look more attractive then sponsoring an individual player. And by NASL limiting the number of team members now, in the future more teams may become sponsored and open up more oppurtunities for a sponsored team league.
If they were going to promote sponsoring of well known teams, this rule accomplishes the exact opposite - because it actually limits the well known teams, which limits both the potential success of the team and air time the sponsors get (because they effectively sponsor only 5 players where they could've sponsored 6 or 7 without the rule).
There's no real reason to believe that just because you limit the powerhouse teams, the other, smaller teams will suddenly attract better sponsorship deals or be able to somehow afford paying salary to their players. Those two things are not directly related at all, and if anybody thinks they are, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that opinion.
It's going to be a 50 man league split into 10 divisions during the online stage, so 3 players get to qualify for the final event from each division. Players that didn't deserve (skill-wise) an invitation to the NASL will end up bottom of their online divisions anyway. How will that help those teams progress?
In fact, unless the stars align, the current top teams will easily get the top 3 in each division. Easily. Players from smaller teams will mostly be filler and will be lucky to get placed in top 5, because they objectively can't compete with actual professionals that train full-time. Full-time professionals come only from the very top teams - by limiting those top teams, you limit the number of potential full time pro players (which bring quality to the game), and replace them with part-time players which, for all their skill and talent, just can't progress past a certain point.
Ultimately you also hurt the players on smaller teams. Without this rule, if one of them shows real promise, Liquid or EG could just sign him, give him a solid salary, top notch practice partners, and a chance to make a career as an actual pro player. But with a 5 man limit, he'll be forced to stay on a smaller team that can't really pay him, which means he's eventually have to focus on university or a day job, which means he'll never reach his true potential.
The team requirement, as Tyler mentioned, goes completely against the other professed desire of getting newcomers into the tournament with regard to the open tournament. Does the team requirement only apply to the top invites and not to the open tournament competitors? That seems pretty silly. Or do the open tournament players also have to be part of a team? They want new up and comers to get onto the scene but they have to be part of a team first?
For all you naysayers out there, what would the Olympic Games look like if there weren't limits to the number of athletes each nation could field per event? Were you even aware that these limits existed?
In a country like the USA, it happens all the time that an athlete ranked in the top 5 in the world doesn't get the opportunity to compete at the Olympics, even though their chances or getting the gold are realistic, because he/she couldn't earn one of the limited births. And yet, Tunisia can send the same number of athletes as the USA even though their chance of medaling is zero. Is this not fair to the USA?
Or how about we look at our own Senate. Why does each state get the same number of senators even though the wealth and populations of states demonstrate otherwise? Can you deny there is a purpose for this? As well, notice that any 1 senator from any state carries more prestige and power than any 1 representative in the House.
On February 27 2011 16:21 JustAnotherKnave wrote: For all you naysayers out there, what would the Olympic Games look like if there weren't limits to the number of athletes each nation could field per event? Were you even aware that these limits existed?
In a country like the USA, it happens all the time that an athlete ranked in the top 5 in the world doesn't get the opportunity to compete at the Olympics, even though their chances or getting the gold are realistic, because he/she couldn't earn one of the limited births. And yet, Tunisia can send the same number of athletes as the USA even though their chance of medaling is zero. Is this not fair to the USA?
Or how about we look at our own Senate. Why does each state get the same number of senators even though the wealth and populations of states demonstrate otherwise? Can you deny there is a purpose for this? As well, notice that any 1 senator from any state carries more prestige and power than any 1 representative in the House.
I don't think that NASL rules should be unfair to the players. It ends up being that way because if your the sixth best player on a team you are SOL. I don't think it is fair to make a player consider a worse team or contract simply to have a chance in NASL. I don't think the olympics comparison is fair in that your still advocating hurting one players chances to favor someone who might not even give their moneys worth.
also there is a clear reason for congress being split into two distinct chambers that function differently.
I know I'm just repeating a lot of what's been said already, but I'd like to add my support.
When I first skimmed the NASL rules interview on G4's site, this rule jumped out as ridiculous. Why are teams discussed in an individual league. I know iNcontroL is butthurt about playing Machine every MLG, but it's an individual tournament as well. MLG has some ridiculous rules and isn't the best organized tournament out there, but they don't go around screwing with an individual tournament by including anything that has to do with teams. I'm worried also about a related issue, which is the way invites are being handled.
Anyway, I hope this league is a success, but leaving the 10th best player available out of the tournament because 5 of his teammates are better is worse for everyone. The fans, the teams, everyone. Randomize the brackets, don't worry about team kills, and let anyone who is good enough and can put up $250 play.
Rules like this reek of one person or a small group coming up with something that sounds good in their head, but only fixes a minor issue nobody else is worried about and rips open a wormhole of legitimate complaints.
On February 27 2011 16:21 JustAnotherKnave wrote: Or how about we look at our own Senate. Why does each state get the same number of senators even though the wealth and populations of states demonstrate otherwise? Can you deny there is a purpose for this? As well, notice that any 1 senator from any state carries more prestige and power than any 1 representative in the House.
They shouldn't. That gives a vote in Rhode Island a disproportionate amount of political say, as compared to a voter from Cali.
One's preformance in NASL should have nothing to do with what team they're on. A team liquid player should have just as much a chance as an EG play.
In related news: Is this why EG dropped Inka? With Inka, their roster is: iNcontroL, Idra, Strifecro, Axslav, Demuslim, Grubby. If they had Inka, they would have to choose a player besides Grubby who wouldn't play. Regardless, I'll be interested to see what iNc does if suddenly Strifecro and Grubby start out playing him.
I don't think that NASL rules should be unfair to the players.
being unfair to some entity is the nature of rules. they are limiting forces. it is natural and automatic to want to operate outside of rules. and yet the purpose of instituting such structure exists, because without rules inequalities are gross and easily recognizable.
the design of this rule is not to be unfair to or to limit players, but instead to limit a teams size. A player can still strive to be the best. In the end it will be for the teams' good, for ultimately they will pour more resources and support into the 5. If one is 6th best on a team, they are just not good enough, regardless of world rank. It is best to accept that and work to supplant one of your teammates. Real sportsman wouldn't balk at this, because they live for and are satisfied and motivated by competition at all levels.
Showing one's worth on the team precedes participation in the venue of NASL. Welcome to the world of sports - the competition is everywhere, even on your own team.
I think what the NASL is missing is the opportunity for a no-name or some grass-root player to surprise and dominate. This is one of the most interesting aspects of the TL Opens.
What I think is you have the teams, even with the 5player/team rule, but you set aside 5-10 spots as an open qualification. That way player #6 has a chance to enter, and JoeSchmoe Masters Leaguer has a chance to enter and surprise the world.
E-sports is not just about the players (... well that's kinda duh, let me go on...) it's about sponsors getting involved. This kind of initiative leaves room for hopeful e-sports businessmen to scout good players (based on your TL-Opens/Zotac Cups...), make their own team and get sponsors, sponsors that would love to have their own hip new Starcraft team with players wearing their shirts and promoting then on livestreams and whatnot.. or at least that's the idea behind NASL I guess.
There are two main points that seem to jump out at me on this topic. One is that the NASL has said they want to focus on the players, and that their goal is to have the "top 50 players in the world" competing. That is a worthy goal, for sure, but placing limits on team entries is in direct conflict with it. If the 14th best player in the world happens to be the 6th best on his/her team, then the NASL, by its own rules, cannot possibly have the world's 50 best players competing.
The second key point is the accountability issue. As was stated in a reply on page 1, the $250 refundable deposit should be enough to ensure accountability because people not on a sponsored team will be paying that out of their own pocket, and therefore have more incentive to follow the rules and get it refunded. Adding a rule that players must be part of a sponsored team is redundant and once again contradictory to the goal of having the world's best players compete.
Essentially, any player exclusion based on something other than skill is hindering what the NASL is attempting to achieve. Obviously I'm not talking about cheating or other blatantly obvious reasons for disqualification here, but potentially being exluded for being on a large team with at least 5 better players than you (in other words, being excluded for who your practice partners are) just doesn't make sense to me.
I hope the NASL will listen to the community's feedback on this subject, and either amend the rules or further explain the reasoning behind their current decision. I also want to take a moment here to say that these criticisms are meant in a constructive manner, and I really am pleased and excited to see a development such as the NASL!
I just find it odd that this league is being started by a team and requires teams in order to enter. It just seems rather self serving, giving eG basically a free spot to be in the tournament. I don't think that there are a lot of teams out there and I would wager that a large portion of top players do not belong to teams.
On February 27 2011 07:19 Rekrul wrote: with 20 ogs's in the tournament how is an EG player gunna make it far in the tourney you sillies!
^This is the only strong argument as far as this rule and promoting esports in america is concerned. It's kind of weird that NASL is framing it in every aspect other than this one, especially when there are strong arguments (thanks nony!), against the reasons they state.
In any case until we find out what the qualification procedure will be we can't really argue on whether or not this is likely to happen. My guess is that it's not so likely since all entrants have to be able to be available for the final part of the tournament in LA(?), and be able to play through qualification and group stages through the US server.
Other than this, I really don't see a reason for this rule that outweighs the reasons against it, so in my opinion it shouldn't be implemented at least until later seasons when we might see korean teams dominate, if that can happen at all with the qualification setup/travel issues.
On February 28 2011 08:11 BattRoll wrote: I just find it odd that this league is being started by a team and requires teams in order to enter. It just seems rather self serving, giving eG basically a free spot to be in the tournament. I don't think that there are a lot of teams out there and I would wager that a large portion of top players do not belong to teams.
It's not an EG venture, it is its own entity and is being run by people currently involved in the gosucoaching company, which, as far as I know, is not directly affiliated with EG.
On February 24 2011 07:14 SayTT wrote: I do agree with tyler that the team aspect in this case doesn't deal with the problems it was set out to do.
This.
I think this pretty much sums up the reason why such a rule should not exist (the 5 players per team limit). You make rules to solve/prevent problems. As SayTT pointed out, and since hearing the reasons on SotG, I do not feel the team limitation rule solves the problems it was set out to do (yes, exactly SayTT's word, I know).
It seems to me people are trying to find reasons for this rule to exist, which contradicts the very nature of rules. You do not make a rule and then find which problems it solves (or prevents), you make a rule to solve and prevent problems.
On February 28 2011 13:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote: hasn't TeamLiquid essentially circumvented the "Max 5 per team" rule by announcing Team Solid and Team Gaseous?
imo the team rules are pretty unenforceable which makes the organizer of this thing appear a bit silly.
That was Tyler trolling, it's not actually going to happen.
I believe the essential issue with the "team" rule, is that the odds of getting the top 50 players to play is lower than if the rule did not exist.
In the NASL perfect world, there are 10 teams with 5 players that make up the best 50 players. But this is not currently the case, i.e. TLO. What they seem to be suggesting is that by making this rule, they will eventually mold the North American Starcraft Community into this world.
Even if this was the ideal world. Why 5 and not 6 or 4 players? Why 10 and not 9 or 11 teams? The numbers seems arbitrary. The "most teams have 5 players" defense is very weak.
It also takes out the exciting possibility of a dark horse coming out and proving him/herself in the NASL.
Why not have half of the tournament seeded team members and half of the tournament open format. I could bring a unique element to the NASL.
It seems odd to me that NASL is the only tournament doing this. I know that its for a lot of money but still we don't see GSL telling OGS that they have too many good players even when they had 3 OGS players in one group.
If you're a good player you should be in the tournament no matter what team you're on. I don't think it will even help to even out teams since only a few teams have more than 5 players that could play for the NASL prize.
I just think that if NASL just said "Hey we want the best 50 players in the world to compete in our tournament." that nobody would think well hey Liquid (for example) has more than 5 guys so they are likely to all be working together so one of them will win.
Cheating has been done in the past but I think that banning from future events and the rules that TSL has to prevent cheating are fine. Taking preventative measures against cheating is a good thing to do but preventing people from playing in a tournament they could win because they may end up cheating to me seems a bit silly.
On February 28 2011 08:11 BattRoll wrote: I just find it odd that this league is being started by a team and requires teams in order to enter. It just seems rather self serving, giving eG basically a free spot to be in the tournament. I don't think that there are a lot of teams out there and I would wager that a large portion of top players do not belong to teams.
It's not an EG venture, it is its own entity and is being run by people currently involved in the gosucoaching company, which, as far as I know, is not directly affiliated with EG.
InControl just happens to be on EG.
eG/gosucoaching/NASL are connected at the hip.
Maybe I'm overstating a fact to say that the entrant criteria favors eG. But regardless of that thought - which doesn't really even matter - in order to be in this tournament, the requirements are:
A - you need to have a fanbase B - you need to be on a team
Maybe that's a good thing in the long run if it takes off but at the same time I feel like it's worth pointing out that this is not a fair system and will result in an overall lower level of play.
i just made a acount, was wondering if anyone with msn would like to talk about protoss and stuff, consider im not getting my new computer for half a year i cant play sc2 just talk about it sad face sad face