atm I dont see the danes winning it. too much scattered and retired top players :P finnish and germans might even be as likely as danish teams :P but I agree navi and ESC are huge favourites for this one, as fnatic will be missing karrigan n friis if they make it to ESWC, and SK is not in their best shape.
well there aren't clubs like FC Barcelona or Chelsea in olympics either, with that logic WCG should either abandon the nationality rule or then only allow national teams, which would be more boring of course. it's pretty unfair for the teams that have multiple nationalities to have such restriction...
It's certainly not WCG's fault that teams have mixed nationalities, but they should recognise that this happens fairly often and adjust their rules accordingly.
I know they're trying to be the Olympics of esports, but that's exactly the problem. Established sports have a well-developed club scene as well as a hyper-prestigious national scene. Esports has the former but not the latter, and WCG's failure to see this is hurting the industry (of course, relative to the good they could be doing). It's also in the nature of e-sports that national boundaries are less relevant.
The vast majority of WCG's audience is made up of amateur players, and these people really do care if teams like the current fnatic or the former SK and Mouz lineups are excluded. Even putting idealism aside, it's a poor business decision.
It seems you do not understand that the idea behind WCG is not suitable for this rule change.
In the same way, it would be quite surprising that events have to adapt to the teams instead of the other way round as teams, from the WCG point of view, could easily include some sort of WCG stand-ins in their usual roster and thus comply with the nationality rule.
Does it suit the teams to do so for just one event? Up to them to decide.
As for the amateur players audience, well, I doubt they are taken into account when line-up changes take place thus I doubt it will be in terms of an event adapting its rules to the audience taste or desires.
I worry we're misunderstanding each other here. I know the idea behind WCG isn't compatible with such a rule change - I'm saying the idea behind WCG isn't compatible with esports, and that they should change the idea.
Obviously we're both arguing anecdotally as there's no good data to speak to either case, but I think it's clear that the absence of Mouz and fnatic last year contributed to the diminished prestige of the tournament. I would be very surprised if the viewer numbers weren't lower than previous years.
As for your last point, events and teams have decidedly different objectives. Teams should maximise fans by getting results - they should, and do, pick players according to who they think will help them win. Events like WCG, on the other hand, should maximise eyeballs (otherwise what are their sponsors paying for?). This is done by ensuring that as many fans as possible are catered for. If this means changing their ethos because big teams (and their fans) are being excluded, they should do it. It's good business.
The whole argument turns on one question: does the "Olympics of Esports" idea pull more spectators than the excluded teams? I'm happy to be proved wrong about this, but from the comments surrounding last year's event, my guess is that the answer is no.
I doubt the idea behind WCG isn't compatible with e-sports as you state. I am more than willing to accept that more likely it would conflict with the teams setup as there is actually no reason to keep extra players for just one event (unless extra players are also in the roster as backups in other competitions, see EPS).
I am not sure why you bring up mouz and fnatic as an example of WCG missing teams thus affecting the audience as both teams did not attend for a different reason than that we are discussion here: mouz due to no WCG qualifier and fnatic having their main conflict with WCG due to sponsor stuff.
If there were less viewer, for CS that is, it is more due to the license holder not setting up those qualifier and, if they did, making them worth attending (cash to actually be able to attend the main event).
Of course events and teams have different objectives but the nationality rule is known long enough and we have seen teams attending with stand-ins for quite some time. Sure it would be nice for the teams to be able to attend with their full line-ups but, as said, teams have to comply with the set of rules of the tournaments they attend.
And we have even seen so called attempts to actually build a national team by picking up the best players to form one team (especially Germany).
Finally, last year's event, just as I have pointed out few lines above in the case of mouz, was severly affected by the lack of funds or the absence of a WCG qualifiers.
Thus, as far as I see it, it is more the lack of money of the license holders than the idea itself the main problem WCG had.
Certainly last year's event had more problems than just the nationality rule. My claim is that, all other things being equal, having fewer top teams lessens the spectator experience (which is what I care about) and reduces viewer numbers (which is what WCG should care about).
Do you agree that the nationality rule has resulted in fewer top teams attending over the years? If not, do you think there's a realistic chance that this might happen in future? If you answered yes to either of those questions, you get the basic point I'm trying to make. If not, please tell me which you would answer no to (and why, if applicable).
One other thing: you seem to be arguing that because the teams know the rules, they should just accept them and move on. Why aren't you willing to criticise the rules themselves?
But by making your claim you should think if having to use stand-ins in order to attend WCG is what makes the teams to not attend.
In the same way, you have to consider what the impact of those teams not attending is, in terms of CS 1.6 .
We have already seen last year that CS 1.6 wasn't treated as one of the main game at WCG and that even, quoting TaZ, other game were given hardware (120 Hz if I remember correctly) that wasn't actually needed in order to play those games.
Not sure if TaZ thought of this but, as far as I understand it, it was always due to promotional reasons featuring them in more main focus games.
I honestly can not assure that the nationality rule made teams not attend. And just the same as with regard to it happening in the future. I honestly doubt that a team would drop its spot because of this.
I do not mean to say that teams have to just accept it and move on. What I mean to say is that teams are aware of that nationality rule being there due to that Olympic analogy I have refered to previously. Bearing that in mind, just as I do, in which way would I have to critize that rule?
Criticism is more understandable in terms of different criteria regarding crouch walk used in tournaments than this nationality rule, honestly.