![shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann](/files/avatars/2007/51852-shaftwhore.gif "shaftwhores only by [EXE]dann"){kind=small}
Roles and Objectives
(No comments)
Referring to the first point of Redeye's post: A media focussed member of the community trying to simplify the coverage of a game to enable it to be understood by a main stream audience.
Creating a ranking is an easy way to do this, the two sides of the argument are.
i) It is simple for the consumer.
ii) It is misrepresentation.
Both statements are true to a degree, a level of self worth and competition value has been assigned to certain competitions. For example the CPL world tour, while it was no doubt an achievement to win it (we must question who actually won what here due to the nature of CPL and it's rules as to who the victor actually is) is that more of an achievement than winning ESWC CS? Obviously i digress slightly, but it is an interesting question, to be the best out of a group of 20 individuals who play a game, or to be the best out of 500,000 individuals who play a game, where does the worth lie? Who are the better players and/or teams?
Is the worth of these events critical for a sport becoming a success?
As Redeye states, the ranking is for the mainstream of individuals, which i would guess none of my readers are. In that case, does it matter what the validity of the ranking system is? We all have opinions as to who is the best at what they do. I personally several years ago believed I was the best UT:CTF defender. It may very well be that I wasn't, but in an argument for my case I won two back to back Nations cups and Eurocup. Now that is a personal worth which I put on the performances and results, however there are people who would disagree with me, and no doubt they have facts and stats which add validity to their arguments. To the external observer, does it matter if they think I was the best or the other guy? In this context i would say no, given the objective of getting someone interested in eSports. The goal has been achieved; they've been given someone who through stats of some form is 'the best'. So that generates a fan base for that player. We can delve further into sponsorship and royalties gained from such a fan base (and the applicability of this model to that fan base) at a later date, but no matter who the mainstream is a fan of, they have been exposed to eSports, which means Redeye's goal has been achieved while working in the confines of his surroundings and the current status of eSports.
I am theorising as to the point and direction of JonJay but i believe it is a point of misrepresentation. Which is true, putting a value and worth on a tournament for whatever reason does suggest a certain opinion is needed, which may not nessesisarliy be correct. We can exemplify this by creating a tournament which has a huge prize pool in a relativly niche game, a single event in say BomberFun (a modification of BomberMan) The player to win this tournament and the huge associated cash prize would jump to the top of the rankings as it's a duel game. So again we have a point which has validity. JonJay is out to produce a ranking which is accurate, but is game specific.
Creating a ranking is an easy way to do this, the two sides of the argument are.
i) It is simple for the consumer.
ii) It is misrepresentation.
Both statements are true to a degree, a level of self worth and competition value has been assigned to certain competitions. For example the CPL world tour, while it was no doubt an achievement to win it (we must question who actually won what here due to the nature of CPL and it's rules as to who the victor actually is) is that more of an achievement than winning ESWC CS? Obviously i digress slightly, but it is an interesting question, to be the best out of a group of 20 individuals who play a game, or to be the best out of 500,000 individuals who play a game, where does the worth lie? Who are the better players and/or teams?
Is the worth of these events critical for a sport becoming a success?
As Redeye states, the ranking is for the mainstream of individuals, which i would guess none of my readers are. In that case, does it matter what the validity of the ranking system is? We all have opinions as to who is the best at what they do. I personally several years ago believed I was the best UT:CTF defender. It may very well be that I wasn't, but in an argument for my case I won two back to back Nations cups and Eurocup. Now that is a personal worth which I put on the performances and results, however there are people who would disagree with me, and no doubt they have facts and stats which add validity to their arguments. To the external observer, does it matter if they think I was the best or the other guy? In this context i would say no, given the objective of getting someone interested in eSports. The goal has been achieved; they've been given someone who through stats of some form is 'the best'. So that generates a fan base for that player. We can delve further into sponsorship and royalties gained from such a fan base (and the applicability of this model to that fan base) at a later date, but no matter who the mainstream is a fan of, they have been exposed to eSports, which means Redeye's goal has been achieved while working in the confines of his surroundings and the current status of eSports.
I am theorising as to the point and direction of JonJay but i believe it is a point of misrepresentation. Which is true, putting a value and worth on a tournament for whatever reason does suggest a certain opinion is needed, which may not nessesisarliy be correct. We can exemplify this by creating a tournament which has a huge prize pool in a relativly niche game, a single event in say BomberFun (a modification of BomberMan) The player to win this tournament and the huge associated cash prize would jump to the top of the rankings as it's a duel game. So again we have a point which has validity. JonJay is out to produce a ranking which is accurate, but is game specific.