Junkmaniac wrote:
This is not wrong, but at the same time the 5 digit scene for instance has become oversaturated with derankers to the point where pool difficulties are increasing just to keep up with the derankers. This in turn creates an unnaturally high barrier to entry for any average Joe hoping to enter the scene, and actually have fun. The scene itself is warping to suit derankers, and that is an issue. Yes rank restricted hosts can't manually screen people if they wish to get the tournament badged, but they are in control of so many more things that can impact the scene. They should not be absolved of their responsibilities here. (Also, just don't badge rank restricted tournaments? Then there wouldn't be this red tape issue lol)
Ok so couple things, firstly, the pool star rating is an excellent point that has been brought up by other derankers. However, that shit is not changing, again, I'm gonna make the 'meta' argument as well as the fact that people are slowly being brainwashed into losing sight of what someone outside of the 10k best tournament players can do for example.
Not badging is also not an option, simply because badges have no inherent value and the argument against badging is not strong enough to overcome badging (which is the 'meta.'). Imo, the issue is in the playerbase assigning value to badges. For example, people may argue 5/6 digit badges devalue open rank badges. However, the value in winning OWC or Corsace is not the fact that you got 'a badge' but that you got an 'OWC/Corsace badge.'
Also, when you say 'so many more things,' I would say the main thing is again, hosting draft/auction, however, sometimes people want to play with their friends and this should be accommodated. Making every tournament draft/auction is not happening.
I think therein lies the problem -- there is a clear gap in what some people believe the point of a rank restricted tournament is meant to be. I personally think the more organic understanding of it would be as an avenue for less skilled players to experience tournament play, but in reality, as you've described, if everyone views the rank restriction as a small barrier/technicality then it becomes a contest of who sandbags the hardest. Which is quite questionable imo because it just throws cake in the face of those who are genuinely not sandbagging, and asking people to be complicit in a sandbagging meta is also unfair because, simply put, not everyone enjoys the feeling of beating up amateurs in an amateur tournament.
The thing is, the 'beating up amateurs' usually only occurs in rounds 1 and MAYBE 2. Therefore, usually superteam can just brush it off by thinking that they were the higher seed anyway. Often, they will face other derankers in later rounds and thus feel usually that there is at least some challenge and therefore they aren't maliszewski'ing on everyone.
Sure, it may be objectively questionable. However, that is not the point. Humans do not operate on objective truths but rather subjective 'metas' and perceptions. You can believe you are morally right and you may be, but if you want change, that is never going to cut it.
As has been said, that change will come in the form of a rating system (or not idk). Till then, I doubt you can expect hosts to really care about the objective truth when the meta around them tells them otherwise.
The ideal is obviously an avenue for less skilled players to experience tournament play, problem is, this is just not happening realistically. This kind of thing only works in other games because 'rank' directly correlates with performance against other players (rating system). osu! is a unique case especially due to how trash garbage the pp system is with again, minimal changes in 16 years and zero buffs to tech and alt and low AR in 16 YEARS DUDE. This game is not claiming to be good in its development by any means.
I think you've got it mixed up -- you can't get to an ethical conclusion via logical a priori reasoning (see Hume's is-ought gap). I would say it is logical and perhaps rational in an economics sense to take the reward-optimisation strategy of giga-sandbagging, but it is very clearly frowned upon by many people (who aren't derankers themselves). Just because you can do something on a technicality doesn't mean its not a dick move.
I did not say it wasn't a dick move but rather due to the meta, I personally view such a 'dick move' as low on the priority list of evaluating these people's character since the 'dick move' is the meta. Moreover, I see your point about ethical conclusions, however, my point was that your conclusion, (which is essentially that these sandbaggers need to be stopped if I am not wrong) is based on logic, and that logic does not apply here because humans do not operate based on logic when there is already a self-serving 'meta' in place.
To put it another way, morally grandstanding that these people all suck will not create change since the 'many people' who frown likely don't really care as much about tournaments or osu! in general, nor do they have much achievements/reputation to back their statements up (which is what you need if you know the osu! 'meta') and thus will not coordinate as well to make change as people whose entire osu! lives are framed around tournaments.
Addendum: there are some 5/6 digit tournaments with ludicrously high prize pools (see: 5wc, bqt, the upcoming blitz tourney with a USD$200 prize pool), and on a rational level you are asking for people to sandbag to win those prizes, which I really cannot argue against. That's the fault of the host because no one should get an open-rank level of prize for being 5/6 digit.
I think you are misattributing fault. Hosts can make whatever prize pool they want. In those cases, there is a veneer of competitiveness but you're right, some sandbagger will win it. What you're missing is that the hosts already know that, they subconsciously want to see which sandbagger will win. Ain't no average player winning lmao.
This is the 'meta.' No one is 'asking' for people to sandbag rather they accept the logical consequence of the rule system being a 'small barrier/technicality,' because, I mean, osu! is still in a shitty state considering the game has been out for 16 years. I mean, did you know they only JUST added the feature that if someone changes team in team vs lobby, it doesn't unready everyone? Like how tf did that take 16 years???
This is just one example to show that osu! is such a low budget game dude. Like, please don't have high expectations for the community and its ability to conduct logical reasoning or make any changes to its super stale meta. Again, as someone who has played tournaments for 3 years, it's not worth it, just focus on advocating for rating system and improving yourself rather than making more enemies out of the current meta.