Ian On The Red Dot

I have a confession to make. Most of the stuff I’m going to talk about is public information that I just digged up. It is there. So not really that exclusive. The other thing is that I managed to check some of my points with a friend involved in this. But before I get to those points, I’m going to make a comment about a blog post I found through tomorrow.sg.

There is a blog post here discussing the scandal. I happen to know one of the gamers involved in the scandal and he told me there are stuff about the Titans team which is not being said and that the consensus among the people involved (no point adding fuel to the fire since they are already being shot in the crossfire) is that it is best not to say it (although it seems that Chris has came out and said it). He didn’t tell me what the stuff is but reading the posts online about this issue, I am guessing that it might have to do with unsporting behavior.

The blog post above mentioned the pointing of middle finger. I’m not sure when the finger was pointed but just to comment on one of the points on why anyone would point the middle finger if already winning or have won the game. Ask any ‘hardcore’ gamer and you will probably get the answer that sometimes you may get frustrated at making a mistake even in a game you are winning or your opponent does something that makes you dulan even if you are winning (especially if you think you are a much better player and somehow shouldn’t have got blind sighted by a noob) and the frustration could be expressed by pointing a middle finger, a rude comment in the main chat or any other means which float your boat. Basically, you don’t need to be losing to be dulan at an opponent.

Is that unsporting behavior? If Ronaldo points the middle finger during a soccer game and is caught doing it, will he be penalized? If it happens in a NBA game?

However whether Titans displayed unsporting behavior is one thing and the evidence (beyond the online comments) needs to be shown that they did exhibit such behavior before the place is denied to them because of this reason. Actually, as of now, no substantial evidence seems to be presented to justify the denying of the place - no video, no pictures, no verifiable witnesses.

The thing is all this could easily have been avoided if whatever governing body related in this matter have recognized from the onset the conflict of interests with Chris Soh’s positions as the person choosing for the drafts and the chairman of the Singapore Gamers Association (i.e. SGGA) which some of the teams participating in the draft are part of.

So what is the supposed conflict of interest? SGGA has an agreement with some gamers that if the association sponsors them to take part in a competition, the team will have to give 50% of the their winnings to the association. Some of these gamers were selected. But apparently, not all the gamers selected have such agreements with SGGA. The forum postings seem to indicate that these gamers were also offered such agreements with SGGA which they refused and yet they were still selected.

So here is the thing I am thinking needs to be asked. For the gamers that were selected, were all of them having sponsorship agreements with SGGA. Apparently the answer is no. More importantly, were there other gamers in those categories who had agreements with the SGGA who were not selected? Let us use the gamer selected for Fifa as the benchmark. Apparently he got (only?) as far as the semi-finals. So are there any other gamers who got to the semi-final stage and has a sponsorship agreement with SGGA but did not get selected while a non-sga associated gamer did?

Here is another thing. People seem to be saying that Chris selected the gamers out of biasness. Maybe, if not most definitely. I mean do you know how tenders are awarded in the business world? It is not always the company that tenders the highest price for a piece of land or the lowest price to win a service contract that gets the tender. Sometimes relationships do play a part. Oh the horror! Here is one conflict of interest that could have been easily avoided. But to link this with corruption and saying that Chris will profit from his choice of gamers that have sponsorship agreements might be a little harsh. Here is why.

I downloaded the contract for the sponsorship agreement. Reading it, I see that SGA will sponsor gamers for ‘Approved Events’. ‘Approved Events’ refers to all tournaments in Singapore and Asia that is pre-selected and approved by SGGA. Are the games played for the CGS in this list? I asked my friend and from his understanding it is not in the list.

The next thing I asked my friend is if the gamers went to KL to play who would foot the bill. Apparently, it is CGS. Since SGGA won’t be sponsoring the gamers, then SGGA would not be getting anything if the gamers do well even if the CGS games were on the list which they are not.

So it seems that for Chris to pursue his self-interest he would want the gamers with the best chance to win in KL to get selected so as the GM of the franchise he would be able to get the USD 50,000 from CGS. So there might actually be other valid reasons for not selecting the winners.

Another interesting thing. If a gamer gets selected to play for CGS, they cannot play in other tournaments unless approved by CGS. If they do play, they play representing CGS. This has been addressed in the CGS forum. It would be best to confirm this by actually having a look at the contract offered by CGS to gamers. In any case, going by what the CGS Admin is saying in the thread, guess what, if the SGGA sponsored teams do make it in KL, it is unlikely that SGGA would be able to sponsor them in any more tournaments for the next season. What does that mean? No cash cow for Chris from that avenue.

So here is the thing about the Cindy person who was selected to play DOA4. Apparently even the marshals did not notice the mistake in scoring until the selections were announced. The mistake in scoring resulted in a marginal difference between the final scores of the finalists and thus prompted Chris to make the decision on showmanship (as stated in his post on the forum). I feel that this is something that is verifiable and marshals and other organizers involved should collaborate Chris’s side on this if this was indeed how things went down.

Now some people will of course say that this is only coming up after the whistle was blown. This is also easily verifiable. Chris said CGS was notified immediately to allow rectifications. CGS can be approached to confirm this. Chris, I hope, kept some sort of collaborating evidence (i.e. email) to confirm this because CGS may not want to comment on this to defend Chris.

Also, the results were known on sunday. Monday is the next working day and the newspaper had coverage of this story on Tuesday paper. So guess that means the press was notified about this probably on Monday for the story to be ready by Tuesday. That doesn’t really leave much time for CGS to respond to Chris’s notification (if it was made).

Chris and every other party involved in organizing and governing this were probably naive in not seeing the possible conflict of interests. But there are real conflict of interests and public perceived conflict of interest. Being in a position to choose the gamers who you have closer ties to is a conflict of interest. In this case however, it seems that choosing the gamers that will most likely line the pockets of Chris is a public perceived conflict of interest until more evidence to the contrary appears.

A last note about the conflict of interest angle. To say that the gamers signed the agreement to get selected is a serious accusation. It is saying that the gamers were bribing or Chris was extorting. Since from the forums it is generally agreed that this fiasco isn’t the fault of the gamers who were naive at best and noob at worse (yes, being noob in the gaming community is far far worse) then the accusation is aimed at Chris. Besides being wary of libel, people should probably take a stance of innocent until proven guilty especially if what seems like accusations were first made by interested parties.

Finally, whatever reasons given by Chris Soh to justify the selection is not going to remove the fact there were conflict of interests and perceived conflict of interests. Sadly, this feels like it will smack of what happens in the Premier League after Chelsea or Man Utd moans about how referees are against them - the next few games, the calls by referees seem to go for them. Everyone is trying to play to public perception of what is justice. In relation to this scandal, there is the danger that selections now will be made on the merit of who can pressure the decision makers best.

—————————————————————–

Actually, a final final note. One wonders if this could have been handled differently. For example, could the Titans, Chris and CGS resolved this dispute in private before the whistle was blown at what seemed like unfairness. Was it the best recourse for this to be taken to be tried in the public court of opinion so fast?

The thing is now people aren’t just sliming the gamers who got selected. Or Chris. People are chiming in to slime Singapore as a whole.

It has been said that we are living during a time when the generation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge is happening at an unprecedented pace. The key to keeping up is the desire and ability to continue learning thus preventing ourselves from becoming irrelevant early in our lives.

I believe that Dota has the capacity to reveal who might have a greater chance of survival based on their willingness to learn.

Noob versus Newb

Both noobs and newbs are damn lousy in Dota. The main difference between these two class of players is their willingness to learn from more experience and better players.

Newbs are beginners and thus players shouldn’t fault a new player who feeds because they have to start learning somewhere. I understand that it can be frustrating to be stuck on a team with a joker who keeps asking how to make a guinsoo and keeps dying, but patience is a virtue (and the greater the challenge, the greater the Glory - tonight we dine in hell!). I think the only times one can fault a newb are:

1. When the game name says ‘Singapore -ap PROS‘ and the newb still joins the game. If the name does not put the word pros then it is open season for newbs to join. But if it does, then I think a bit of frustration and aggravation is justified.

2. When the newb doesn’t listen. For example if you tell the newb to back and he stills go and farm alone in the bottom lane after all the towers have been pushed, he is trying to promote himself to a noob.

Noobs are not always beginners. They can be people who have played the game for a damn long time. The two key characteristics of noobs are an unwillingness to bother to learn the game and the tendency to think they are damn bloody good thus negating the need to listen to anyone. Noobs display these two characteristics in varying degrees.

The worse kind of noobs are the kind that blame other people when they are obviously the weakest link. Sometimes you just want to reach through the computer screen and strangle the joker who ,after feeding 0-12, types in the main chat, ‘Sigh, my team damn noob.’

Stubbornness can be an asset at times especially when you have supreme confidence in your own intellect and abilities. But it takes wisdom to know when to defer to someone with greater knowledge and experience.

Friends tend to be more willing to listen to each other as opposed to a stranger in a public game and thus it can be argued the stranger is not really a noob but just that you haven’t earned his trust such that he should be listening to you or your friend might be actually a damn stubborn person but just because you guys are friends he listens.

However every friend has to start learning how to play at some time. It is at this starting point of their dota playing that is most telling for the newb/noob characteristics. When new heroes come out is another good time to observe these characteristics. Also, even though you might not be friends with the other players, it is easily identifiable in a Dota game who should be worth listening to so the strangers in a public game doesn’t always cut it.

The Teachers

Regarding this aspect of the character of dota players, how more experienced and better players deal with noobs/newbs reveals who are the ones who can make good teachers.

There are those who just write off anyone who doesn’t know how to play as a noob and do not bother to teach. Some hosts would even go as far as to kick the player. There are others who would try to teach the player and based on the reaction of that player decide whether to continue making an effort to help teach or ignore the player.

Finally

When I first learned how to play the game, I was really lousy.  It was only when I met the founding members of my clan that I got better.  They taught me how to play the game better and because of it I continued to play the game.  If I had not met those two guys, I would have probably stopped playing Dota.  This is an important point that I will elaborate in my last post of the series.

Yesterday, I wrote the first post in a series about how Dota might be able to reveal certain things about your friends. Today I will continue with another aspect of your friends’ characters that can be revealed through Dota.

Investing: Buying Small, Current Advantage, Gaining Momentum

In the early stages of learning the game, Dota players fall into two broad categories when it comes to buying items. The first kind of player would invest the initial gold into buying items like branches, flask, clarity potions, tangoes, null talismans, wraith brands and bracers. These are low cost items which help a player stay longer in a lane during the initial part of a game before returning to the fountain to heal so that more xp can be earned and gold farmed.

The second type of players is the kind that either does not buy any of the above items or buys those that can be upgraded to level 2 and above items. For example, such a player would buy a sobi mask because it can be used to make a basilius and eventually a vladmir’s offering.

Now buying a sobi mask by itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing although it has been argued that in early stages stats is more important than mana regeneration and actually it seems that one time boost in mana with clarity potions is also better than the regeneration sobi mask gives for the early stages). What is a bad thing or rather questionable is the logic behind buying a sobi mask.

A common reason is that buying a sobi mask is useful because it can be used later on as part of the higher level items. In other words, the sobi mask is not expendable (like potions and flasks) and need not be sold away (like bracers, bands and talismans) in the later stages of the game. Now this is where two different views about investing can be seen.

A disclaimer needs to be said here. If the player is a noob/newb, then even the initial advantage in the right choice of items might not make a difference to farming and the gaining of experience.

The former type of player understands the concept of incremental investment and how it helps build an early advantage. They understand that although the items like bracers, bands and talismans will have to be sold away later on at half the cost of buying them, the initial advantage these items accord to the player will allow them to farm better and gain more experience than the opponents. This advantage allows the possibility to gain the kind of momentum in the game which allows the player to totally outfarm the enemy and pawn them.

The latter type of player will be the kind that possibly sweats the small stuff in life. The kind that does not do anything where it seems like a loss would be suffered. For example, they might not be willing to take an initial pay cut just to shift to another job which might have better long term prospects or to a working environment that might make them happier.

The former is the kind that sees the bigger picture, the kind that understands that every small step counts and deliberately chooses the small steps that help lead to the goal even though the small steps might not seem to lead directly to the goal or at times seem to exact a high cost. For example, sobi mask directly leads to oblivion staff. Investing in stats allows you to farm better which leads possibly to the oblivion staff quicker.

As players get more experienced in the game, it is likely by the mechanism of imitation, they will start adopting the purchasing strategies of the better players although the better players would still be the ones who actually know which items are best for which heroes. In this case, noticing this about your friends will probably only be possible during the initial stages of learning how to play the game.

Investing: Always waiting for that one Big Score

As players become more experienced, it is the following kind of player that is seen: the player that saves for that mega item. For example, while being owned, there are instances when I hear a few teammates say, “Wait till I get my ‘Sacred Relic’ then they GG”.

And I am thinking, we might gg before you can get the relic. There are times when it is necessary to save the gold until it is enough to buy the more expensive items like that ‘demon edge’ (which costs 2600) but there are times when it is necessary to take the 1200 you have to buy the broadsword first, then the 1150 you have to buy the ‘blades of attack’ and recipe to make crystalys.

The two different type of players are those that know when there is time to save and hold out buying anything until the big item (subsequently buying the smaller items to make the level 3 item) and those that always just keep saving to get the big item first thinking that the big item is some magic cure not realizing that sometimes the small things are necessary first to allow the team to keep any foothold in the game.

I’m not sure how accurately this might reflect in real life, but it could be possible that the latter are the kind that always go -

‘My life will get better if I find that dream job’ instead of doing their best at the current job while looking for the next one.

‘Once I start earning $4000 then I will start saving more and learn to invest my money better’ instead of starting on saving and small investment plans first and slowing build up the savings and investment portfolio.

‘I just need this one time mega funding for my project’ instead of working on the idea or preparing for the execution of the idea without any funding such that when funding does come they are equipped to seize the opportunity.

‘Sigh, I couldn’t go to overseas university, now stuck in sucky NUS’ instead of making the best of their NUS days, seizing all the possible opportunities and striving to do a masters in an overseas university.

The former might be the kind that goes to NUS, aims to do well, apply for exchanges and slowly work to that final goal of being able to study or work overseas one day.

Finally

As I mentioned in the first post, Dota would most likely not be an accurate predictor of people’s characters. But during different phases of the learning curve for the game and different circumstances while playing the game (i.e. losing instead of owning) it is possible that Dota might reveal a bit about your friends’ characters.

I first discovered Dota in one of the darkest days (I’m being a bit drama) of my life yet (I’m leaving room for more dark days). It helped me numb the pain, widened my social circle, allowed me to get closer to some people who have become good friends and helped me get an A for my Human Resource project.

Dota is a really interesting game and I feel to a certain extent, it reveals a few things about the people that you play the game with. Of course I’m not saying that it is an accurate predictor of a person’s character but it possibly gives a general guideline.

I will be posting over the next few days some of my thoughts on this.

Risk Adverseness and Risk Assessment

There are some people in my clan that are considered humji. Some of them are the type of players that will also be the first to run in a big gangbang (i.e. major contact with enemy heroes). There is also another type, the ones that suggest to ‘b’ (i.e. back) instead of engaging the enemy. Sometimes there is miscommunication and the other players will engage with one joker backing which will tend to result in the enemy with numerical or hero superiority to rape (i.e. decimate, annihilate …) the team. The following is an example of a typical conversation after the battle.

—————————————–

Dead Hero: Cheebye lah, why you back?

Alive Hero: What? I already said b.

Dead Hero: B for fuck. Can kill one. Cb. now cannot buy recipe.

Alive Hero: Kill what fuck. You cannot see they got three heroes meh.

Dead Hero: We also got three what. You run got two, of course die lah. Fuck man.
Alive Hero: Fuck lah. I said b. You want to cheong in, don’t come and fuck me now.

—————————————–

Pardon the expletives, but that is how things are in the chat during the game.

Anyway, the former type of players, the ones that always run first in a gb could be argued to be the kind that cannot be counted on in real life. However true that might be is hard to gauge considering that this is a game.

It is the latter that interests me. The latter group interests me in the same ways as those we call crazy in my clan. They are the type of players who will try to 1v2 enemy heroes. The kind that we say ‘b’ will confirm cheong in and get himself killed (and usually allow the enemy with that momentary numerical superiority to push down one tower).

Why do these two groups of players interest me? It does so because it reveals how people have a different way of assessing risk. I do not think it is a coincidence that the crazy type of player in my clan is the biggest gambler. I also do not think that it is a coincidence that the humji type of player in my clan suffers from analysis paralysis.

Looking at a set of heroes and the items the heroes have, different players will make different assessments on whether it is advisable to engage the enemy. Some players make the wrong assessment on whether a battle will be successful because they do not know enough about the items and heroes abilities. These people tend to become better in assessing the risk of engaging when they go and learn more about the items and heroes.

Players also have a different way of considering what is successful after an engagement. Is killing two enemy heroes at the cost of only ally hero a success? Some people may say it is while others might feel that it is only considered a success and thus worth engaging if it can be 2 enemy heroes killed at zero allied loss. Two players may make the same assessment that engaging will kill two heroes for the cost of one, but different risk appetite will result in one saying cheong while the other says back.

Over the course of many games, it is possible to see the risk adverseness of your friends. It is also possible to see the abilities of people in assessing risk. Helping people improve their knowledge in the game helps align the final risk assessment and ensure that the team stays on the same page. Changing risk appetite is possibly harder but if you understand the risk appetite of the players in your team, it helps in preventing miscommunication and thus less damaging engagements happen.

So why is possibly able to understand the risk assessing abilities and risk adverseness of your friends through Dota important? I’ll discuss that during the last post in this series.