Suffering from success? 11well i hope ure not suggesting to remove captureage from casual stream :D
Suffering from success? 11well i hope ure not suggesting to remove captureage from casual stream :D
One of the reasons I like Euro Cup more than World Cup. WC is hype but it's always one of the big teams winning it. At the EC we've had so-called "smaller" teams winning it:Imagine leaving the current European Champion out of that list
Not sure if I would describe Netherlands as a "smaller" team... I guess you are not really into football. The Dutch often manage to field a very strong team and their performance in the big tourneys reflects that. Just to give you a sense: WC 1998: #4, EC 2000: #3, EC 2004: #4, WC 2010: #2, WC 2014: #3. But it's true that in their case their success relies on "golden generations"(but I'd say this is the case for other nations as well).. I'd wager that they will have a golden generation very soon, and they will dominate again.One of the reasons I like Euro Cup more than World Cup. WC is hype but it's always one of the big teams winning it. At the EC we've had so-called "smaller" teams winning it:
- Soviet Union 1960
- Czechoslovakia 1976
- Netherlands 1988
- Denmark 1992
- Greece 2004
- Portugal 2016
One of the reasons I like Euro Cup more than World Cup. WC is hype but it's always one of the big teams winning it. At the EC we've had so-called "smaller" teams winning it:
- Soviet Union 1960
- Czechoslovakia 1976
- Netherlands 1988
- Denmark 1992
- Greece 2004
- Portugal 2016
Not sure if I would describe Netherlands as a "smaller" team... I guess you are not really into football. The Dutch often manage to field a very strong team and their performance in the big tourneys reflects that. Just to give you a sense: WC 1998: #4, EC 2000: #3, EC 2004: #4, WC 2010: #2, WC 2014: #3. But it's true that in their case their success relies on "golden generations"(but I'd say this is the case for other nations as well).. I'd wager that they will have a golden generation very soon, and they will dominate again.
While I don't necessarily disagree with your oppinion, I just thought that calling the Soviet Union a small team is quite hilarious. At least in that period of time.
Wouldn't call Portugal a small team either. Yes, a small nation for sure, but one with a very strong football tradition and always having strong players. You can never rule them out and most of the times Portugal go out to teams that make a deep run in the tournament which is no shame whatsoever.
These days there are almost no teams which consistently win international tournaments... you cannot judge teams on winning titles alone. Football is a much more competitive sport now than it was in 1980 or so. Rank 1-4 in the WC or EC are serious achievements.I'm very well aware of the Netherlands and I know that they regularly produce some of the best talent of all time. Pretty remarkable for a relatively small nation. But at the same time I feel that as a team they're a bit overrated. At the end of the day results matter and all they have to their name is that Euro 88 win that I already mentioned.
But the fact that they have been an insane football factory hasn't escaped me. Lately though...they've kinda fallen off the grid which factored into my decision. Nostalgia only goes that far with me. After all if we look at raw talent produced and mediocre team achievements, we might as well include Croatia or Portugal as one of the big teams. But they're not. Not at the level of Germany or Brazil. Germany doesn't even really produce such crazy talent, they're a team unit that just wins.
To me consistently winning high level tournaments = big team.
My post has to be read out of the time period context; similar to my commentary on the Dutch above. Soviet Union is tricky to categorize of course because it no longer exists. Nor does Czechoslovakia of course. But my point is that many teams rise and fall. Hungary rose in the 50's, Soviets in the 60's, Czechoslovakia in the 70's, Dutch in the 80's, Denmark in the 90's etc etc. But the mark of a big team is being consistently strong across multiple decades including the present.
I was born in Romania, have Hungarian heritage and grew up partially in Germany. Surrounded by football fanatics all my life. Not that it matters, there are plenty of born and raised Canadians that have more football knowledge and passion than me. It has nothing to do with where you're from, it's having a clear objective vision of the truth which you're clearly lacking.These days there are almost no teams which consistently win international tournaments... you cannot judge teams on winning titles alone. Football is a much more competitive sport now than it was in 1980 or so. Rank 1-4 in the WC or EC are serious achievements.
How many titles has Germany won in this century? 1 (WC 2014)! What about Brazil? 1 (WC 2002 - not counting Copa America of course, because that tournament is much less competitive than EC)! Spain has 3 and France 2. I don't see Germany or Brazil winning a major tournament in the next 4 years. To be clear, I'm not saying that Germany or Brazil are not big teams - of course they are - but you need to lower your standards for what a big team is.
Based on their performances in the last 20 years, the Dutch are def a big team in international football (by which I mean a team that is a serious title contender), and Portugal a big team in European football (their WC performance is disappointing though). But I appreciate that these things are seen differently in Canada.
"has a clear objective vision of the truth"I was born in Romania, have Hungarian heritage and grew up partially in Germany. Surrounded by football fanatics all my life. Not that it matters, there are plenty of born and raised Canadians that have more football knowledge and passion than me. It has nothing to do with where you're from, it's having a clear objective vision of the truth which you're clearly lacking.
I would say that I can appreciate you being a coward and hiding your location but I'd be lying.
not enough to fund all our ideas sadlySuffering from success? 11
While i agree theres a ton of events being sponsored these days, I think from a host/ organizer perspective that the reason why is always the same 8 to 10 people being asked to participate is because it feels like its what gets people hooked and wanting to watch and having more casters casting it too, basically what gets attention. Ive seen showmatches between people outside the top10 and the viewership was super low. So i guess its not just about “spreading it out” but also a bit of responsibility on other bigger channels -imo- to cast it or shine a light on those players too. Community growth shouldn’t be one sided, and telling people what to do with their money isnt a solution either.
and i couldnt agree with you more! it just feels a bit odd when people think that sponsors or hosts should allocate money differently because its "boring" or not "fair" to the up and coming players. But i agree with this logicThis is the issue though, in the same way you don't think it's your responsibility because you want to grow your channel the bigger channels think the exact same thing. This is why the responsibility should be on MS. If MS put up $1k every two weeks to host a small tournament for players that had reserved spots for people outside the top 10 or w/e people would be chomping at the bit to be the ones to host it.
And viewers still wouldn't watch it. That's the main reason why showmatches always include the same popular players.If MS put up $1k every two weeks to host a small tournament for players that had reserved spots for people outside the top 10 or w/e people would be chomping at the bit to be the ones to host it.
well thats just wrong, sure you wont have the biggest numbers, but that is expectedAnd viewers still wouldn't watch it. That's the main reason why showmatches always include the same popular players.
Yeah the point is to invest a little bit of money to grow the depth of talent in the scene. Theoretically people who want to watch AoE2 might watch it if they see it exists even if they don't know the players. They are a way to introduce people excited about the game to more names to be interested in.well thats just wrong, sure you wont have the biggest numbers, but that is expected
Was it steelseries or something? People would vote for the challenger as well. I liked itWhat was the name of that showmatch series a few years back where the winner played on the following week against a new opponent? I forget the exact settings but I like the idea of letting a winner continue on and see how many weeks they can win consecutively.
Before closing down ECL planned to do something like thisWhat was the name of that showmatch series a few years back where the winner played on the following week against a new opponent? I forget the exact settings but I like the idea of letting a winner continue on and see how many weeks they can win consecutively.
Anyone is free to allocate funds the way they see fit. If you think sponsoring a showmatch between your particular favorite players or players/casters( which is usually the same 6 or 8 players ) is the most beneficial and entertaining for you, its absolutely fine. If people to that strictly for entertainment, nothing to analyze here. It can get problematic if someone opts for this as a channel growth boost, which apparently many new streamers choose to do. They will always go for potentially most attractive match-up so suggesting them to do it differently is silly. Then again many of them are afraid to close streaming for their "sponsored event" - which in effect won't do anything for them, in fear of public lashback (cause viewer X wants to watch it on t90 or memb).
Growing your own channels by this type of promotion is rather volatile, id say in most cases people might end on an economical loss if they cant translate the promotion into a reasonable quick channel growth. And lets be honest, not all of you have the charisma and skills to be a successful streamer.
Another thing ( and that is what bothers me) which has been the case for years now, is that this self-beneficial ( in the vast majority of cases) trend of sponsoring showmatches is being wrapped up in the overused packaging of "I'm doing it for the community". Well you're not. It's long been established that engaging tournaments have the most postitive stimulus on both the rise of competitive scene and viewership rather than some random showmatches. If you wanna help the community, join forces with another small streamer, gather some small funds ( you dont have to compete with Hidden Cup right away), host an excluse streaming tournament - you gain both the content and attraction. And if you choose to follow that path, please don't complain about the amount of work you have to do while hosting it. Hosting a showmatch is just a lazy attempt at boosting yourself quickly.
I'd rather a streamer said blatantly "guys im sponsoring player #1 vs player #2 because thats what generates the most traffic very quickly and in effect potentially the most money for me". And that would be fine. Honesty is so hard to find here that anything you hear or read feel like a politically correct PR statement.
"Viewers wouldn't watch it " is thrown around often - Cmon guys it doesnt take a phd to know different factors come into play, thousands of people watch low elo legends, 1v1 noob coaching or other marginally low gameplay everyday. Gameplay skill is just a part of the show. Depending on the case sets are underpromoted, underorganised, mis-timed or just casted by arrogant underinformed or just non-entertaining casters. I personally can't watch many of the smaller casters because of the extensive bias combined with gaping knowledge of the game, and trust me that is the case for many others.
Open streaming is actually a huge issue that only benefits the largest streamers. Also, for some reason, there is this principle that is held by many in the community that if the money for a tournament comes from MS the tournament must be open streaming and as I understand it MS has actually put this into their tournament policies now. I'm not sure what came first, the MS policy or the community view.