One of the great things about ET's past is that the big name teams who we have come to recognise and associate with the top prizes available have their alotted time space: from the end of RTCW marking the high point for teams like kreaturen, surrender or die and rewind standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the next generation of what might be called great teams coming from the birth of Enemy Territory, teams like DSky, Gunslingers and mythology. These names have become synonimous with any decent ET player, and although the players might have moved on to other challenges, the acomplishments the team made will forever be noted in the halls of fame and memories alike.
As teams started to establish a hold at the top, fresh challengers arrived (think saevus / estar, insanity) with their sights firmly set on capturing the pinacle of their chosen game, leaving for many a memorable game and moment. "Luger frag!" anyone?
Understandably, as time progresses, some teams are required to add to their roster for players who have moved on to persue another direction, meaning time is needed to restore the teamplay and balance many of the big sides had managed to achieve beforehand - and almost always seeing a performance dip in the immediate aftermath as a result. But this is only normal, and if all the top teams didn't apply such a strategy then ET would have died a slow and painful death a long, long time ago. So this is all good and fine. And new players coming to an old group is invariably a good thing...new ideas are introduced, different teamplay combinations come alive, and flair is given a fresh platform to display itself. I don't see any problems here, but there are two topical examples at the moment which I see as losing some of the "culture" of ET.
[*] A name is a name is a name, and history will forever judge achievements against it, whether positive or negative. To take the example of DSky, who acheived consistant top three finishes over 2003/4 in such tournaments as the EuroCup and SummerCups. Clearly the name carried much positive light with it. What they could have done was simply kept the name going, and dragged it down through their eventual demise after the Summer 2005 EC, which saw a lot of conflict within the rules and much unneeded negative attention. They might have gained some second places, but it was becoming obvious that the EC was slipping away, and their last fourth place finished summed this up. However, with the name Roistot being used throughout, the days of DSky remained untainted. Again, I take no issue with such an example.
[*] More recently, we have seen big name MGCs such as uQ and one4one losing extremely successful ET teams (Mztik's 141 ended after dropping out of the most recent EC, and uQ mutually split after winning said tournament). Such was the calibre of the two aforementioned teams, that everybody knew the task of replacing them with equally skilled teams would be nigh on impossible: after all, the EC is designed to show who is the best ET side out there, and with the winners leaving and idle becoming inactive, there really wasn't any team at the time capable of filling the void. What we have subsequently seen is two teams - roughly the old Queens and Splashdamage teams becoming the "new uQ" and "new one4one", and playing under the same name (and even tags) as their predecessors. Invariably, the results are not the same as before, and the name suffers as a result. Their playing is marred by instability or a desire to prove themselves as equal to the old team; at the moment you will see uQ spamming IRC for official games in a bid to reach the CB Euro Ladder top-spot, the equivalent to winning the Carling Cup for all you English football followers. Instability is also a key point: we are on the fourth generation uQ side since the first one went on to form Reason gaming, who then went to one4one. So the question is, how close should MGCs let their follow-on teams tread in the footprints of those who have gone before?
Personally, it will always be the teams themselves who decide upon how their image is presented, and if they wish to keep on bringing in new squads to keep the name going, then that is their own decision. But I'd much rather see a SplashDamage.141 (for example) than a team with a responsibility to carry on what the old team did. We now have to remember who was playing for the generation, rather than the team name, which usually just gets lost in the jumble that is ET's history. One thing seems assured however: there will always be players who jump at the opportunity to ride the waves created by those who have gone before them, and distinguishing between them and the "legitimate" players is often an impossible exercise.
[To clarrify, I'm just using uQ and 141 as examples .. I have much love for kerial, plu and razz etc (well, plu is chubbycuddly), this isn't aimed directly at you!]
As teams started to establish a hold at the top, fresh challengers arrived (think saevus / estar, insanity) with their sights firmly set on capturing the pinacle of their chosen game, leaving for many a memorable game and moment. "Luger frag!" anyone?
Understandably, as time progresses, some teams are required to add to their roster for players who have moved on to persue another direction, meaning time is needed to restore the teamplay and balance many of the big sides had managed to achieve beforehand - and almost always seeing a performance dip in the immediate aftermath as a result. But this is only normal, and if all the top teams didn't apply such a strategy then ET would have died a slow and painful death a long, long time ago. So this is all good and fine. And new players coming to an old group is invariably a good thing...new ideas are introduced, different teamplay combinations come alive, and flair is given a fresh platform to display itself. I don't see any problems here, but there are two topical examples at the moment which I see as losing some of the "culture" of ET.
[*] A name is a name is a name, and history will forever judge achievements against it, whether positive or negative. To take the example of DSky, who acheived consistant top three finishes over 2003/4 in such tournaments as the EuroCup and SummerCups. Clearly the name carried much positive light with it. What they could have done was simply kept the name going, and dragged it down through their eventual demise after the Summer 2005 EC, which saw a lot of conflict within the rules and much unneeded negative attention. They might have gained some second places, but it was becoming obvious that the EC was slipping away, and their last fourth place finished summed this up. However, with the name Roistot being used throughout, the days of DSky remained untainted. Again, I take no issue with such an example.
[*] More recently, we have seen big name MGCs such as uQ and one4one losing extremely successful ET teams (Mztik's 141 ended after dropping out of the most recent EC, and uQ mutually split after winning said tournament). Such was the calibre of the two aforementioned teams, that everybody knew the task of replacing them with equally skilled teams would be nigh on impossible: after all, the EC is designed to show who is the best ET side out there, and with the winners leaving and idle becoming inactive, there really wasn't any team at the time capable of filling the void. What we have subsequently seen is two teams - roughly the old Queens and Splashdamage teams becoming the "new uQ" and "new one4one", and playing under the same name (and even tags) as their predecessors. Invariably, the results are not the same as before, and the name suffers as a result. Their playing is marred by instability or a desire to prove themselves as equal to the old team; at the moment you will see uQ spamming IRC for official games in a bid to reach the CB Euro Ladder top-spot, the equivalent to winning the Carling Cup for all you English football followers. Instability is also a key point: we are on the fourth generation uQ side since the first one went on to form Reason gaming, who then went to one4one. So the question is, how close should MGCs let their follow-on teams tread in the footprints of those who have gone before?
Personally, it will always be the teams themselves who decide upon how their image is presented, and if they wish to keep on bringing in new squads to keep the name going, then that is their own decision. But I'd much rather see a SplashDamage.141 (for example) than a team with a responsibility to carry on what the old team did. We now have to remember who was playing for the generation, rather than the team name, which usually just gets lost in the jumble that is ET's history. One thing seems assured however: there will always be players who jump at the opportunity to ride the waves created by those who have gone before them, and distinguishing between them and the "legitimate" players is often an impossible exercise.
[To clarrify, I'm just using uQ and 141 as examples .. I have much love for kerial, plu and razz etc (well, plu is chubbycuddly), this isn't aimed directly at you!]
