MLG Scandal

[GORDON]

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

[Malcolm]

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.

[Leisher]

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.

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. :p

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

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.

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. :p

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.

[WSGrundy]

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.



Edited By WSGrundy on 1346613619

[Cakedaddy]

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 suck the same amount of money.

[Leisher]

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

[Cakedaddy]

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!

[TPRJones]

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.



Edited By TPRJones on 1346782604

[Cakedaddy]

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.

[Leisher]

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

[TPRJones]

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.

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

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?



Edited By TPRJones on 1346846619

[Leisher]

We must have both misunderstood each other.

Fair enough.

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...?

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?

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.