Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Games
Topic: MLG Scandal
started by: Leisher

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 27 2012,12:06

< Details. >

The League of Legends forums have blown up with people screaming that MLG and Riot overracted and did the wrong thing. These people are wrong, and it isn't even something that can be debated.

Their points and why they're wrong:

1. "They were disqualified for playing ARAM!"

These teams were not disqualified for playing ARAM. The organizers of the tournament weren't thrilled about it, but that's not why they were DQed and denied prize money.

ARAM, for those unfamiliar, is a style of play in LoL that doesn't utilize the entire map, but limits all players into one lane against each other for the length of the match.

2. "Nobody threw the match"

This one is pure speculation on both sides of the argument, and it heavily ties into point #3.

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson played for the Chicago White Sox and was on the infamous "Black Sox" team. Joe, and 7 of his teammates, took money to throw the World Series, yet his stats showed he had an amazing series, and would appear that he did his best to win it.

What's the point of that? Keep reading.

3. "All they did was agree to split the money. No harm in that."

This is where the internet trolls are really wrong.

There's this game called poker, and they have a world championship. Well, in years past folks would agree to split the pots. However, since the sport went mainstream, they needed credibility, particularly for their sponsors. Thus, there are now rules preventing such collusion.

Part of the thinking is that if you're guaranteed a certain amount, your efforts will be diminished. Don't try to debate that because it's absolutely true. If you are playing a game in which the winner gets $1,000,000 and the loser gets nothing, you're going to bust your ass. If you're playing a game where there is no difference between winning and losing, you're not going to care very much if you lose.

The sponsors who pay for the tournament and put up the prize pool want a great match. They don't want the audiences who show up to see two teams half-assing it because they're already reached an agreement to split the prize purse. Does anyone really think an audience will tune in to watch people not trying their best? And if the audience isn't there, the sponsors aren't there. Without sponsors, there is no tournament.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 27 2012,12:10

When it comes to moral decisions, usually the right thing to do the opposite of what the majority of people on the internet think is right

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 27 2012,12:19

"RedBeard", Riot's VP of eSports, posted the following on the North American LoL forums:

QUOTE

Just to be crystal clear, MLG’s decision here has nothing to do with ARAM. Both Curse and Dignitas admitted to and apologized for colluding prior to the finals to throw the match.

Posted by WSGrundy on Aug. 27 2012,18:58

I disagree with splitting the pot. Doing that doesn't mean you are going to get a half assed match. People still want to win the title. I have several friends who drag race in competition that pay large prizes around the country and 99% of the final 4 all agree to split the money. Never once have any of them not tried to win the race.

I don't know how much extra money comes along from being #1 in a video game but it sure as hell has to bring more in endorsements then being #2.

If there were rules saying no to splitting the pot then go ahead and kick people out but I don't see any reason why that would lead to a poor final.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 27 2012,20:47

QUOTE

I have several friends who drag race in competition that pay large prizes around the country and 99% of the final 4 all agree to split the money. Never once have any of them not tried to win the race.

People will try for a title, but not as hard. This isn't something you can argue. It's science. It's nature. It's why people get complacent in their lives. They settle into habits and as long as they sustain them, they don't strive for more.

Yes, some folks would have the drive to continue to try to win, but most folks wouldn't.

However, all of that is a moot point considering the collusion apparently went beyond splitting the purse.

I also don't think auto racing is an ideal example. And I mean no offense by that statement, but there's more at work there than human will. That's a debate for a different thread though.

Also, this tournament was for chump change compared to the main event. Only $40,000 total was on the line, meanwhile in the next event they're playing for millions.

I can only compare this all to poker where rules state there is no prize splitting, ever. It might even be illegal to do in poker tournaments in Nevada. Seriously. I know this issue has been discussed in televised events.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 28 2012,06:23

I had no idea that was in Raleigh this past weekend.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 28 2012,06:28

(Leisher @ Aug. 27 2012,22:47)

QUOTE

Yes, some folks would have the drive to continue to try to win, but most folks wouldn't.

Exactly. And if they didn't have that drive to continue to try to win, they wouldn't have been in the final in the first place.

These people have that drive to continue to try to win. This isn't something you can argue. WSGrundy is right.

What it DOES change to do this is perceptions. People perceive the stakes as being lower, so they lose interest and they think they see people not playing as hard. And that's a perfectly valid reason for those running the show to worry.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 28 2012,07:18

(TPRJones @ Aug. 28 2012,09:28)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Aug. 27 2012,22:47)

QUOTE

Yes, some folks would have the drive to continue to try to win, but most folks wouldn't.

Before I begin responding to this, I want to point out that they admitted to fixing the finals, so all of this is a moot point because they weren't just splitting money.

As to your statement, you lost me.

Not sure how you can say "Exactly" to my statement, and then say folks will always try to win. I think you quoted the wrong thing?

Anyway, I completely and utterly disagree with you. Not everyone in a finals has the drive to get over the hurdle of "now you're just playing for a title because the prize has been removed". You're arguing against human nature there.

The fact that they agreed to split the prize money proves my point. Do you think at any point in his career, Michael Jordan would have agreed to split the prize money (if that's how the NBA worked) for a championship series? Think Tiger Woods or Jack Nicolaus made back room deals to split the purse on the final day of the Masters? I can go on and on with these examples.

The problem with your argument for these specific individuals, who were found to be cheating and DQed, is that they had nothing to play for after their deal. The title meant nothing. This was a regionals tournament and both were already into the nationals. That's one of the reasons they played an ARAM game.

What's that? Imagine if the Boston Celtics and LA Lakers met in the NBA Finals. It's a best of 7 series. Well, they determined before hand to split the prize money, so for fun they decide that instead of a normal basketball game, they'll play game under the rules of H.O.R.S.E.

That's literally what took place here. While I don't judge them negatively for showcasing a game play "mode" that some aren't familiar with, it also showcased a "who cares" attitude towards their finals series.

Before you imply that, "Hey maybe they play ARAM a lot"... ARAM stands or "All Random All Mid". That means they're letting random chance dictate which one of 100 or so champions they're going to play that game. Nobody has all the champions mastered. Every player has specific ones mastered. It'd be like Tiger Woods deciding on the final day of a tournament to let a fan pick a random set of clubs and balls for him to play, then not letting his caddy carry his clubs or give him distances/reads, AND deciding not to user his putter.

That's my point. I don't think they WANT to lose once they agree to a split, but I think their drive suffers a hit, even if it's ever so slight. Because that knowledge is sitting in their brain knowing that even in defeat, they win. That's a crutch, and a very natural human defense mechanism. When it comes to crunch time, that's going to be there helping them accept a defeat rather than fighting back with every scrap of fight they have left.

As to your other point, no disagreement there. Perception is what I was talking about when I said sponsors will NOT accept splitting of prizes. It dilutes the product, and turns off the audience.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 28 2012,07:23

(Leisher @ Aug. 28 2012,10:18)

QUOTE

Before you imply that, "Hey maybe they play ARAM a lot"... ARAM stands or "All Random All Mid". That means they're letting random chance dictate which one of 100 or so champions they're going to play that game. Nobody has all the champions mastered. Every player has specific ones mastered. It'd be like Tiger Woods deciding on the final day of a tournament to let a fan pick a random set of clubs and balls for him to play, then not letting his caddy carry his clubs or give him distances/reads, AND deciding not to user his putter.comes to crunch time, that's going to be there helping them accept a defeat rather than fighting back with every scrap of fight they have left.

I think a better analogy would be... Tiger Woods, and everyone else in the game that day, decided to play left handed.

I don't think peeps want to see that shit, they pay to see the masters at work. I think peeps would stop being excited about these tournaments, and by extension the game, if it were tainted with a "hey top 3 teams, let's split the prize because this is stressful and there are consequences to losing." Because who gives a shit about something like that? I wouldn't. I want to see first place, and first loser.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 28 2012,08:00

(Leisher @ Aug. 28 2012,09:18)

QUOTE

Not sure how you can say "Exactly" to my statement, and then say folks will always try to win. I think you quoted the wrong thing?

Because I was agreeing with your statement that some people will try to win regardless of the stakes. And then I pointed out that the type of person to end up in that League of Legends match is exactly that sort of person, or they wouldn't have been there at all.

Are you saying that the high-stakes League of Legends players are in fact not insanely driven to squeeze every last ounce of misery out of the opposing team at every opportunity? We are talking about League of Legends here. Have you ever met the sort of people that play that game competitively?

You admit there are people like that. I agreed. Then pointed out that if anyone has ever been so, these are those people.

I think this is also probably true of just about every sport. The high end players are mostly the sort that are so driven that specific stakes don't matter. They will try their hardest regardless. If that weren't so, they wouldn't have been driven enough to be there in the first place (of course there are some exceptions, but probably not that many). If anything they probably play a bit better when splitting because some of the nervous pressure is off and they can focus more clearly.

However, I am not defending them. And I totally understand why they are being DQ'd. Because of the perceptions thing. Perceptions that I think are mostly wrong, but still exist.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 28 2012,08:33

QUOTE

Before I begin responding to this, I want to point out that they admitted to fixing the finals

Wait, what? They admit that they decided in advance who would win? Not just "let's split" and whatnot?

If so, then I stand corrected. These guys shouldn't have been playing in the first place and now I wonder if them getting there wasn't also rigged with bribes of some sort.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 28 2012,09:02

QUOTE

And then I pointed out that the type of person to end up in that League of Legends match is exactly that sort of person, or they wouldn't have been there at all.

I don't agree with that. Drive is an awesome factor, but I don't think only people with drive get to the promised land. Sometimes pure skill takes you or you're on a team who carries you.

Since LoL is a team game, it'd only take one guy to give less than his absolute best. Understand, he may go into the game to win, but if things get bleak, he may slack off a bit knowing it doesn't matter anyway.

QUOTE

Are you saying that the high-stakes League of Legends players are in fact not insanely driven to squeeze every last ounce of misery out of the opposing team at every opportunity? We are talking about League of Legends here. Have you ever met the sort of people that play that game competitively?

This made me laugh. The community does have a reputation doesn't it?

Still, there's a points system that you're overlooking. The finals didn't matter much to either team aside from the cash and a meaningless title.

My point is, you've taken the cash and the points off the table. The cash is being split and the points are meaningless, so they're just playing for that title. And again, to show how important that was to them, they agreed to play in a variation of the game that they play day and night. Oh, and do so with potential champions they've never played, and in roles they don't normally play.

Because Michael Jordan once played while hoping on one foot, "just for fun".

And that's actually another point right there. They said they played that ARAM "for fun". The level of competition in that admission is staggering.

Let's look at the history of poker. They used to let folks chop pots in tournaments, until television, and the tournaments would just end or be "all in" fests until a winner was decided. I've heard people tell stories about how folks just wanted to get out of there and head to another tournament (back when chopping pots was legal in tournaments). The point being that once the prize disappeared, so did the desire to win.

And again, I'm not saying EVERY player in every sport would stop trying if they made such a deal, but some would. To suggest otherwise is foolish, and implies that the logic of "People who are on welfare will work hard to get off of it" is correct.

I also agree with your statement that some folks might play better with the pressure off.

Ditto for perception, which is the most important thing, because sports and competitions are nothing without sponsors and an audience.

However, my point remains that some people will not try their hardest to win when the stakes are gone despite a "title" still being up for grabs. All the evidence in this situation backs my belief up, as does the history of poker.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 28 2012,09:09

(TPRJones @ Aug. 28 2012,11:33)

QUOTE

Before I begin responding to this, I want to point out that they admitted to fixing the finals

Yeah, go back up and read what I posted about "RedBeard".

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 28 2012,10:03

QUOTE

They said they played that ARAM "for fun". The level of competition in that admission is staggering.

This is probably true, and doesn't necessarily detract from the intensity of the competition. Again, we are talking about LoL players. "For fun" usually means something different to them. Like screaming at each other about being newbs and ganking at every opportunity. Or more realistically, trying to rise to the challenge and ripping your opponents throat out through his ear. That's their "fun".

And ARAM is not quite like you make it out to be. You get assigned a champion from those you own, so it won't be one you've never played before. And then you get to swap with your teammates as well, so you can get people into the best role possible given the draw. I imagine at the high end it's much more interesting and challenging than regular games where everyone is bringing their best champ so there are no surprises. Of course the audience would rather see their best game rather than their most fun game, but they weren't considering the audience when they chose that.

Because they're idiots with no empathetic social skills and have no concept of what an audience might think about the setup. From their point of view, they were probably trying to make the game as exciting as possible. For them.

It's like how every year my mother would give me as a birthday present something she wanted, because she couldn't understand that other people might want other things than she does. I know this type of person all too well.

QUOTE

Yeah, go back up and read what I posted about "RedBeard".

Oh, that. Of course they admitted to colluding, that's the whole point o fthis thread. But the "throw the match" bit I'd need to see in the players own words before I take that as written. I can see them agreeing to ARAM and split as being "throw the match" as far as RedBeard was concerned even if in fact they were going to play as hard as they possibly could and had not agreed in advance that someone would take a dive.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 28 2012,10:28

QUOTE

You're painting LoL competitors incorrect, and with a single stroke of the brush. Despite their reputation, they aren't all the same.

You're forgetting that they're human beings. Just because they're LoLers doesn't mean they scream noob at everyone.

Half of the people on these forums play LoL.

Noob.

QUOTE

And ARAM is not quite like you make it out to be. You get assigned a champion from those you own, so it won't be one you've never played before. And then you get to swap with your teammates as well, so you can get people into the best role possible given the draw. I imagine at the high end it's much more interesting and challenging than regular games where everyone is bringing their best champ so there are no surprises.

You're forgetting that the game is selecting for them at random. It literally could have been 5 AD Carries against 5 support champs. FUN!

At the top levels of the game, these guys own everyone. You don't just buy the players you play or those are who will be banned by the other team. Then you're fucked.

QUOTE

Go dig through all the articles. There's one that states at least one member of one of the teams admitted the match outcome was pre-determined.

You know, in the grand scheme of things, this is a good thing. I know that sounds crazy, but they needed this precedent. Now they can go forward with stricter rules in place to stop it from happening again. They should just be thankful it happened in a meaningless regional and not the Season 2 finals.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 28 2012,13:01

QUOTE

You're painting LoL competitors incorrect, and with a single stroke of the brush. Despite their reputation, they aren't all the same.

This is true, they aren't. There's certainly variation. But I do think in general those at the top tiers are the most driven to compete.

You are just as guilty of generalizing with your claims that everyone in the world is the same and would not play as hard with a split. Of course I don't think you really mean everyone, so ultimately we are disagreeing on what the majority of people in that situation would be like. I think you are right that most people taken from the general populous wouldn't play as hard. But I also think those most likely to be in that situation aren't on average the same as the average person taken from the population in general, and most of them there would still play just as hard.

QUOTE

You're forgetting that they're human beings. Just because they're LoLers doesn't mean they scream noob at everyone.

Half of the people on these forums play LoL.

Noob.

I know. I've seen y'all play. I've played with y'all, and read threads about how games went and what needs to be changed.

Where do you think I am getting these generalizations from?

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 28 2012,13:52

QUOTE

But I do think in general those at the top tiers are the most driven to compete.

Or just have more opportunity than others. For example, perhaps they just happened to be on a team of people who didn't have jobs and families to take them away from LoL.

QUOTE

You are just as guilty of generalizing with your claims that everyone in the world is the same and would not play as hard with a split. Of course I don't think you really mean everyone, so ultimately we are disagreeing on what the majority of people in that situation would be like. I think you are right that most people taken from the general populous wouldn't play as hard. But I also think those most likely to be in that situation aren't on average the same as the average person taken from the population in general, and most of them there would still play just as hard.

I'm generalizing, but I'm doing so from a position of defending the rules. All it takes it a single player who slacks off and the rule is justified.

You simply cannot make an agreement with your opponent prior to a match that could have an affect on the outcome of the match. Agreeing to split a prize, and thus, removing incentive to win does just that.

QUOTE

I know. I've seen y'all play. I've played with y'all, and read threads about how games went and what needs to be changed.

Where do you think I am getting these generalizations from?

We are brutal to one another In fact, Cakedaddy says that every loss we've ever had is my fault. However, we're quite polite to our opponents. Even the ones who talk lots of shit. We just like to talk shit to each other. (One glaring except to everything I just said...)

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 28 2012,13:56

QUOTE

See, I'm with you most of the way here. It's only the "and thus, removing incentive to win" that I think is flawed.

QUOTE

However, we're quite polite to our opponents. Even the ones who talk lots of shit.

You mean especially the ones who talk lots of shit. Smiling politely in the face of incandescent rage mainly because you know it will only piss them off even more doesn't make you a saint.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 28 2012,13:57

(Leisher @ Aug. 28 2012,16:52)

QUOTE

He says a lot more things than just your LOL game is your fault.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 28 2012,14:01

Leisher, let me ask you this: Because there is not any money on the line, does that mean you never give LoL your best effort? Ever?

I mean, it sure sounds like y'all are trying pretty hard to win, based on the posts I read here. But if there's no money on the line, apparently that can't be so.

So, maybe Cakedaddy is right.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 28 2012,14:02

We keep analyzing the game expecting to flip the mental switch that will get us the silver bullet to never lose again, ever....

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 28 2012,16:53

Dream on. You get good as much as you put time into it, within exponentially decreasing gains. Any offset between you and someone who's played a comparable amount of time is natural ability. Unless you're a savant, chances are the offset's not going to be that big. Hell, even that assumes you don't have any massive hurdles to jump over in terms of strategy or tactics.

Or so I've figured from years of FPS and flight sim games. I assume the same philosophy has to apply to RTS.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 28 2012,18:25

QUOTE

See, I'm with you most of the way here. It's only the "and thus, removing incentive to win" that I think is flawed.

Yeah, I know, and it isn't.

QUOTE

You mean especially the ones who talk lots of shit. Smiling politely in the face of incandescent rage mainly because you know it will only piss them off even more doesn't make you a saint.

I never claim to be a saint, but I try to be a good sport.

QUOTE

He says a lot more things than just your LOL game is your fault.

Maybe, but I'd only trust him to make such a determination in LoL.

QUOTE

I do try my best all the time, but I'm that type of person. I don't like to lose. However, I have been in situations where I've competed with nothing on the line, and the entire feel of the event is different than one where you're playing for something.

For example, I'm in a poker league. This is our 8th year. It's $200 to play for 22 weeks, plus $5 a week for a weekly pot. The $200 goes towards the final table prizes. It's all friends and family. It's the best night of the week as we play poker, pool, blackjack, gamble, and bullshit. However, without the money involved, we wouldn't do it.

Gambling and competition doesn't exist without something to win.

And ridiculous as it sounds, there is money on the line for us...potentially. If we could actually get 5 people online more than 1 night a month, we might have a shot at putting something together.

Posted by WSGrundy on Sep. 02 2012,12:19

QUOTE

I also don't think auto racing is an ideal example. And I mean no offense by that statement, but there's more at work there than human will. That's a debate for a different thread though.

Not sure what you mean here and this thread has gotten to long so I will just say that I don't agree at all that splitting the pot has a negative effect. Just ask the guy who lost the final and who won from my previous post.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Sep. 02 2012,19:40

They only tried hard for as long as they needed to. They are the 'best of the best' and made it to the finals. Now the pot is big enough that splitting it is still cool. So, they take all the pressure off by agreeing to split it. Big sigh of relief as no matter what, they know they've won. Now, just go play the game and collect the guaranteed prize. I don't have to try any more as I've already won. I'll still play to win, cause winning is fun. But, if I lose, it was just a game, so no big deal.

Splitting the prize WILL affect the game being played. It may not affect the race at an amateur level race. When they are mostly out there for the hobby and splitting the prize means their gas getting to the race is covered. They still race for the title. Two pros? They will NOT push their cars as hard, risk damage/crashing/etc as they've already won. They'll drive down the track. But not as hard. I can see the same thing in poker. I can lose now, or play for another 4 hours. Either way, I win the same amount of money.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 02 2012,22:48

QUOTE

I can see the same thing in poker. I can lose now, or play for another 4 hours. Either way, I win the same amount of money.

Exactly.

To put this simply:
This wasn't the finals. Their game meant nothing. Even if they didn't split the prize money, both were advancing. It was just a matter of seeding.

But here's a great example for you:
The Indianapolis Colts had a chance to go undefeated in the regular season recently. Instead of playing their starters, they played backups during the game and lost. Why'd they do that? To rest their starters and protect them from injury. Point being, they had a chance to do something only one other team, at the time, had ever done, and they threw it away because the win didn't mean as much as wins later.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Sep. 02 2012,23:32

That I can understand though. The prize was still up for grabs and they made a smart play. I'm impressed they were able to do that, instead of go for the 'glory' of being the second team to do it. If it was the super bowl and both teams get rings and they decided to split the winnings. Then, that would be a boring game. Yes, both teams would try to win. But no one would risk injury or ending their career putting it all on the line for that important first down. You'd see showboating and lazy playing. Kind of like in the last game of this tournament!

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 04 2012,11:16

(Leisher @ Aug. 28 2012,20:25)

QUOTE

Leisher, let me ask you this: Because there is not any money on the line, does that mean you never give LoL your best effort? Ever?

I do try my best all the time, but I'm that type of person. I don't like to lose.

I'm saying there's a good chance they would still play hard even with no money on the line because the type of person that gets to that level is the type of person that plays hard because they hate to lose. You say that's not possible, that no matter what they wouldn't play hard once there's a pot split agreement. Then you say you always play hard even with no money on the line because you hate to lose.

So, you are saying you're the only exception in the world to your statements?

I don't think the examples from other sports really apply here. There's no needing to worry about pushing the car too hard or getting your players hurt. As far as I know there's nothing in LoL that means playing your champ too hard will get them hurt for the next game. And the games don't last so long that someone is likely to take a dive early just for time.

Posted by Cakedaddy on Sep. 04 2012,11:54

This can really be ended by saying that if the pot hadn't been split, we would have NEVER seen the ARAM game. No way in hell is that game played with the money on the line. The money was taken out of the equation and you saw a shit game that was fun/funny to them. Neither team brought their A game, because they didn't have to. And that's what the examples above show. Lack of A game. Lack of 110% effort. Of course you can't lose a champ to injury. No one was arguing that. That's just stupid. Lack of the best played game by both teams is what's being argued. And to try to say that we saw the best game they could have played is ridiculous. They both gave up because the outcome had already been determined. The tournament was over before the last games were played.

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 04 2012,11:56

QUOTE

No.

You assume that my position is "that's not possible". That's an incorrect assumption.

Of course there are people who will strive to win even with nothing on the line. It's called being competitive. At no point did I say such a person doesn't exist.

Michael Jordan is that type of person.

My point is that human beings are flawed, and if you take away the carrot, many will not try as hard.

Welfare is a great example of that.

There were 10 men in that regional final of LoL, and all it takes is ONE of those 10 guys to half-ass it to taint the match. That's my point.

You even agree:

QUOTE

there's a good chance they would still play hard

(And again, please allow me to point out that not only did these LOLers play the first match by ARAM rules, but it's been confirmed multiple times that they did indeed pre-determine who would win and who would lose, so continuously defending them is pretty ridiculous.)

Splitting the purse is an example that actually proves my position, not your position. The ultra competitive types you're saying all high level competitors are don't split purses.

Michael Jordan didn't split purses. Michael Jordan is a notorious gambler. He wanted to actually raise the risks, not lower them. And that's what prize splitting is, a lowering of the risks.

QUOTE

I don't think the examples from other sports really apply here. There's no needing to worry about pushing the car too hard or getting your players hurt. As far as I know there's nothing in LoL that means playing your champ too hard will get them hurt for the next game. And the games don't last so long that someone is likely to take a dive early just for time.

Of course they apply. You're talking about a human being's competitive nature. You're saying that you can remove the prize from a sporting event, and they'll play just as hard. I'm saying that's not necessarily true.

We can't only apply it to LoL because if we do, the argument is already over because these assholes split the purse and pre-determined the winner. Hell, doesn't that prove my point already? Why are you still debating that wouldn't happen? IT DID!!!

Again, all I need is 1 person to half ass it. 1 person to phone it in, and my argument is proven correct. You need everyone to always bust their ass with nothing on the line.

AND AGAIN...split purse + pre-determined outcome = ?full effort?

For WSGrundy, the problem with your example is three fold: they're friends, the purses aren't big enough to cause dissension, and machines are involved which can negate the human influence.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 05 2012,04:17

QUOTE

You're saying that you can remove the prize from a sporting event, and they'll play just as hard. I'm saying that's not necessarily true.

Ah, okay then. See, no, I thought YOU were saying that if you remove the prize then no one in the world could ever possibly try as hard, while I was saying that's not necessarily true. We must have both misunderstood each other.

Oh, and that - statistically speaking - the type of person to get to the top of their game is more likely to be that sort of driven person than someone taken at random from the general populace at large. That may not apply to all sports, because of course sometimes talent and athleticism are more important than drive, but there's not a lot of athleticism involved here.

QUOTE

I don't think the examples from other sports really apply here.

QUOTE

Of course they apply. You're talking about a human being's competitive nature.

No, not there, there I'm talking about all the specific examples given. One example was not wanting to risk wrecking the car. Another was not wanting to risk injuring a player. I can't think of any parallel in LoL where the actions of one game can potentially ruin you for the next. Unless the parallel is wrist strain from moving the mouse too quickly?

Posted by Leisher on Sep. 07 2012,12:00

QUOTE

We must have both misunderstood each other.

Fair enough.

QUOTE

Oh, and that - statistically speaking - the type of person to get to the top of their game is more likely to be that sort of driven person than someone taken at random from the general populace at large. That may not apply to all sports, because of course sometimes talent and athleticism are more important than drive, but there's not a lot of athleticism involved here.

I know what you're saying there, but I don't know if I can agree to it.

As an example:
The top poker players in the world used to love to split purses so they could head to the poker rooms and win more money. Titles and bracelets are nice, but at the end of the day, maybe more so than any other sport, it's about the cash.

But I do get what you're saying, just not sure how realistic it is...?

QUOTE

Actually, a legit worry would be revealing your strategy to your next opponents. But again, I know what you mean with your point.

We'll have to wait until the next sports/esports scandal to debate this again, since these 10 jackasses made it pretty clear that competition was something they did not want.