The question I have to ask is simple. Who comes first: Players or ETTV?
Thesedays every big and not-so-big final receives ETTV coverage, along with many smaller games of interest between teams that people want to see in action. Often when players are offered the chance to play with ETTV, they jump at the chance - knowing that their pro skills have the potential to be seen by hundreds of soon to be adoring fanboys, and increasing the spotlight and press the team gets. And this seems like a perfect scenario: the players get their fix by having a few extra spectators on the server, the ETTV viewers only need to slash connect to an IP to see their favourite players in action without having to pay a dime...the only people who lose out are those who have to pay for the service, but I really have no interest in talking about that for now.
What interests me is highly topical at current, and comes from the opposite angle, namely, what if the players don't want ETTV to be available for their final. In the recent semi-final and finals of the fast #ET-Cup, PLU's 141 team actually requested to not have ETTV, due to what they claimed was its adverse effect on a couple of players's pings. What actually happened for those who were not watching the game, was that an issue was raised with ETTV several minutes before the game: too late to change server or go about contacting the various people needed to get rid of the service. PLU's ping had gone from its usual 48 on the 141 server to around 70, and snot from xtraZone was pinging in at the 150 mark, with claims being made that this only happened on ETTV enabled servers. I decided the game had to go ahead, but promised to review the situation for the finals (which 141 played in).
Perhaps it'd be useful to take a step back at this point and look at the wider picture. Imagine the CB EuroCup final, minus any ETTV, because the players raised objections with performance. Who would be listened to? The players, or the pro-ettv admins who want their game to be broadcast for the benefit of everyone else? If it was just a case of allowing ETTV cancellations for 'minor' games, such as independant cups / tournaments, you would surely see a decline in the number of such competitions being run, which, for ET, is still at an extremely high level. Then again, people generally play ET because they find it good fun / entertainment, and why should that be ruined because they have some obligation to have ETTV present.
This issue doesn't seem to be placebo... the players in question really did return to normal pings on the 141 server without ETTV. Do we say that because only a minority are affected, the ETTV can stay, or that the players themselves should be allowed to coordinate what is broadcast and what isn't. Whatever your view, I think it'd be interesting to see what people think - especially crossed with their background.
Thesedays every big and not-so-big final receives ETTV coverage, along with many smaller games of interest between teams that people want to see in action. Often when players are offered the chance to play with ETTV, they jump at the chance - knowing that their pro skills have the potential to be seen by hundreds of soon to be adoring fanboys, and increasing the spotlight and press the team gets. And this seems like a perfect scenario: the players get their fix by having a few extra spectators on the server, the ETTV viewers only need to slash connect to an IP to see their favourite players in action without having to pay a dime...the only people who lose out are those who have to pay for the service, but I really have no interest in talking about that for now.
What interests me is highly topical at current, and comes from the opposite angle, namely, what if the players don't want ETTV to be available for their final. In the recent semi-final and finals of the fast #ET-Cup, PLU's 141 team actually requested to not have ETTV, due to what they claimed was its adverse effect on a couple of players's pings. What actually happened for those who were not watching the game, was that an issue was raised with ETTV several minutes before the game: too late to change server or go about contacting the various people needed to get rid of the service. PLU's ping had gone from its usual 48 on the 141 server to around 70, and snot from xtraZone was pinging in at the 150 mark, with claims being made that this only happened on ETTV enabled servers. I decided the game had to go ahead, but promised to review the situation for the finals (which 141 played in).
Perhaps it'd be useful to take a step back at this point and look at the wider picture. Imagine the CB EuroCup final, minus any ETTV, because the players raised objections with performance. Who would be listened to? The players, or the pro-ettv admins who want their game to be broadcast for the benefit of everyone else? If it was just a case of allowing ETTV cancellations for 'minor' games, such as independant cups / tournaments, you would surely see a decline in the number of such competitions being run, which, for ET, is still at an extremely high level. Then again, people generally play ET because they find it good fun / entertainment, and why should that be ruined because they have some obligation to have ETTV present.
This issue doesn't seem to be placebo... the players in question really did return to normal pings on the 141 server without ETTV. Do we say that because only a minority are affected, the ETTV can stay, or that the players themselves should be allowed to coordinate what is broadcast and what isn't. Whatever your view, I think it'd be interesting to see what people think - especially crossed with their background.
