EPTNaniwa offers Bounty to whoever beats Revival - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
shark.
593 Posts
| ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
There are dozens of situations in each season where players aren't fully motivated because they get nothing from a win. But in those cases, where you don't see just 1 player in your way, it would be very expensive to offer bounties for 5-6 players that could stand in your way, so people don't do it. In this case, Revival IS the guy who stands in Naniwas way. And he has to endure this 'dirty' fight. It's one of those moves that are almost illegal, and your opponents will hate you for it, but it's ultimately what winners do. Just look at what Luis Suarez or Diego Costa are doing to defenders of opposing teams. And they're like 2 of the top 5 strikers in Europe right now. | ||
|
Waise
3165 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse wrote: Everyone should play their hardest, and whatever incentive system produces that outcomes is a good thing. my response this argument in a previous post: no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives. i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way. and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament | ||
|
Xoronius
Germany6362 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:11 Lonyo wrote: IEM invited Revival to replace someone who couldn't make it. They invited him on the basis that he was the highest WCS points holder who wasn't already going and who accepted the invitation. The person they SHOULD have invited was the person who came second in a qualifier to the guy who forfeited, but instead they invite people who already have WCS points so they can get more WCS points. It's ridiculous and should not have happened. If Revival had not gone, he would not be able to match Naniwa on WCS points. Although I really hope, that JonSnow and SeleCT can beat Revival, I can´t blame this one on IEM because while Nerchio should have gotten ForGG´s spot ( I think we all can agree on that), Revival got screwed over in the original invites. Those were supposed to be based on WCS points, but somehow a certain overhyped ex-bw-player with half of Revivals points got invited before he (Revival) did, although that spot could have already been his. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23570 Posts
| ||
|
Tur
Brazil263 Posts
Also, team and sponsor give a bonus for a player if they score in a important match an so on. I think this is very clever move by Naniwa! | ||
|
InvictusRage
United States230 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:09 Waise wrote: a lot of people are worried about those inequalities, it's a pretty big subject of debate in the community as far as i can tell? a lot of people don't like koreans coming in and winning prize money for other regions because korean culture has more infrastructure and dedication toward starcraft than other societies. it's an interesting debate, but one that has nothing to do with revival or naniwa, because they presumably knew the rules when they signed up for the tournaments they compete in I don't understand your answer here. My point is that of course they're on different footing; all the players are on different footings because they are different people. The question is which inequalities don't serve the purposes of incentivizing good play and keeping the sport healthy. Inequalities like that are a problem. My claim is that this inequality is not a problem. On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote:You're not worried about those because they don't matter. We don't care if people are competing under different circumstances if all of the relevant circumstances are the same, and both players are interacting with the program under the ways that everyone has agreed are okay, and that the differences in play are due to skill and execution. None of that has changed. i think one player having a higher potential prize pool matters. if you were offered a spot in a tournament with 15 other people who are about equal to you in skill, and the organizers told you that if you won you would only receive 50% of the first place prize, would you not have a problem with that? it doesn't matter what the exact dollar figure is, it's just a principle. why should the rewards not be even? if the rewards didn't matter to players, blizzard certainly wouldn't offer them. so yeah i think it matters[/quote]Well, it'd kind of suck for me, yeah. I'd definitely prefer to have the higher prize pool available to me. I'd also like to be the best SC2 player in the world, and rich, and a Ph.D. in geophysics. The question is not what I want, but what I am entitled to. On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote:Now, it may be the case that your opponents are slightly more motivated than they would be otherwise, but so what? You (and Revival) are not entitled to have unmotivated opponents. In fact, Naniwa and the watchers are entitled to your having very motivated opponents. This is why we think badly of people who concede these things without playing. We understand, in cases like Taeja's and Scarlett's before it turned out she could play third season of WCS, that they are conceding for good reasons - health, wrist reasons mostly. no, and that's a good point, revival isn't "entitled to unmotivated players." but if revival's opponent is thinking "ok, this is just challenger, i want to win and i will play hard but i'm only going to practice 2 hours instead of 6," then naniwa's offer comes along and he says "oh, more money! i'll put in those six hours after all!" i think that's a real form of competitive imbalance. it's not the fact that they're becoming motivated, it's the fact that naniwa is manipulating their motivation with financial incentives. [/quote]Why is manipulating their motivations in this way a problem? It's clear to me (and I think, to you) why manipulating their motivations in the other direction would be bad; if there's some question about whether some people are losing on purpose, it strongly undercuts a lot of the reason to watch and seriously makes people question whether what we're watching is a product of good players playing well. So players having motivation to play badly is bad. But players having motivation to play well is good, and that's what Naniwa is providing. Yeah, Revival's opponents are quite likely to be more motivated than they otherwise would be. That /is/ a 'form' of competitive imbalance, but it's not an objectionable form. Differences in skill are a huge competitive imbalance; the better player wins a ton of the time. But that's not a problem; the better player winning more often is good for the sport and for the viewers. It is better for the sport and for the viewers if Revival's opponents (or, honestly, any player whatsoever) has as much motivation to play well, legitimately, as possible. On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote:Seriously, guys, the comparison with real sports is the comparison to side bets athletes have about their performance, and those side bets are a commonplace. Michael Jordan is so famous for his side bets that there's a conspiracy theory that his first retirement was to hush up a real gambling scandal. This is mostly a non-issue, does not reflect badly on anybody's professionalism, and I think it's kind of cool. key word is "side." doing things openly on twitter is not "side" anything. another key word is "scandal." michael jordan had a gambling scandal because there was a problem with it. those things are still supporting my point IMO[/QUOTE] No. 'Side bet' is a technical term in sports gambling having to do with what the content of these bets are. The problem was that Jordan may not have limited his betting to side bets, and may have made bets (all of this is pretty much speculative of course) that undercut the competitive legitimacy of the sport. The bets I'm talking about, the NBA bets and the MLB bets, are common knowledge. Everyone knows about them, and nobody cares. | ||
|
Aeceus
United Kingdom1278 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:21 niteReloaded wrote: Diego Costa.... top 5 strikers in Europe right now. Just no.... | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:14 Waise wrote: revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason. can you stop spamming accusations that i'm trolling just because you don't like my opinion? thanks Keep in mind, you did that yourself. Also, you seem to have an odd notion of fairness. You're saying that Revival, due to working hard in the past, has the moral high ground. Evidently, since Revival worked hard in the past, it is his moral right for his opponents to not receive any additional motivation. Even if the opponents have far less motivation than Revival for entirely rational reasons, Revival is entitled to his position of motivational superiority, and attempting to balance the scales is immoral and wrong, primarily because Revival worked hard in the past. His opponents also deserve their lack of incentive, despite the fact it is due to poor tournament formatting as opposed to true failure on their parts. Attempting to give them an incentive to win is morally wrong, according to you. Doesn't work that way, I'm afraid. Revival's reward for the effort he put in isn't an entitlement to an easier road to the finals. His reward is what he's already gotten. He's worked hard, but he's fallen short. If he wants to make up for his shortcomings, he's going to have to beat some wimpy Americans. Before, the wimpy Americans had to reason to want to fight Revival due to faulty tournament formatting. Now, they have a reason to win, and thus a reason to fight. That is not a bad thing. It happens constantly in many sports. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On October 29 2013 04:46 DarkLordOlli wrote: GUYS breaking news - Revival's group is Taeja, Select and Jonsnow. Taeja forfeited. I thought Taeja already said a while ago that he wouldn't be competing in Challenger and forfeited his slot once he got knocked out. Regardless that doesn't really matter. | ||
|
Headshot
United States1656 Posts
| ||
|
Pirfiktshon
United States1072 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:14 Waise wrote: revival has the incentive already because he played better than his opponents throughout seasons 1, 2 and 3. that's a legitimate reason for him to have a higher incentive. naniwa injecting money isn't what i consider a legitimate reason. you literally want me to be banned because i don't agree with your opinion? can you stop spamming accusations that i'm trolling just because you don't like my opinion? thanks There is a difference between voicing an opinion and just condemning someone just because it doesn't fit into your own moral code of ethics...... | ||
|
DavoS
United States4605 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote: my response this argument in a previous post: i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way. and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time. | ||
|
Zorgaz
Sweden2951 Posts
| ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote: Oh man, someone needs to break it to this guy that players do not play as hard when there is nothing on the line. It has been that way for all of time. He seems to understand that, but for some reason believes that because Revival was fairly successful earlier in the year, he is entitled to opponent who won't try hard, and Naninwa giving said opponents a reason to try is somehow unfair to Revival. No, I don't understand it either. Nobody does. But that seems to be his stance. | ||
|
Waise
3165 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:27 InvictusRage wrote: incentivizing good play shouldn't come at the cost of the legitimacy of the competition. it's a problem to me because if the players' motivation isn't coming from a true desire to achieve and be the best at their sport, then i feel no incentive to care about their success or respect the results of the competition. you and 100 other people have repeated "anything that increases incentives is good" and i just could not disagree more. i could be wrong as far as sponsors or the public go, who knows, but this is how i feel about itI don't understand your answer here. My point is that of course they're on different footing; all the players are on different footings because they are different people. The question is which inequalities don't serve the purposes of incentivizing good play and keeping the sport healthy. Inequalities like that are a problem. My claim is that this inequality is not a problem. On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote: so you actually don't think competitors in a paid tournament are entitled to be given equal circumstances under which to compete? if revival has to play in a snake pit, that's ok because "people are different from each other and you aren't entitled to anything"? my entire argument is that competitors should be/are entitled to a certain standard of competitive fairness. if they weren't, then i'm back to wondering why we don't allow maphacks. either there are rules or there aren't! if there aren't, fine, but what i don't understand is the double standard where some rules are important but other concepts of fairness don't have to beWell, it'd kind of suck for me, yeah. I'd definitely prefer to have the higher prize pool available to me. I'd also like to be the best SC2 player in the world, and rich, and a Ph.D. in geophysics. The question is not what I want, but what I am entitled to. On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote: the entire point of hosting a starcraft competition is to exhibit differences in skill. it is not to exhibit differences in scruples or business acumen. that's literally my entire argument. i don't feel interested in a tournament where this type of thing is allowed.Differences in skill are a huge competitive imbalance; the better player wins a ton of the time. But that's not a problem; the better player winning more often is good for the sport and for the viewers. It is better for the sport and for the viewers if Revival's opponents (or, honestly, any player whatsoever) has as much motivation to play well, legitimately, as possible. On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote: No. 'Side bet' is a technical term in sports gambling having to do with what the content of these bets are. The problem was that Jordan may not have limited his betting to side bets, and may have made bets (all of this is pretty much speculative of course) that undercut the competitive legitimacy of the sport. The bets I'm talking about, the NBA bets and the MLB bets, are common knowledge. Everyone knows about them, and nobody cares. ok, i didn't know about the definition you were using for side bets, but it doesn't change anything about my argument. i don't see how you can say that "nobody cares" when there are scandals. how is it possible for a scandal to happen if no one cares? | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
| ||
|
mikumegurine
Canada3145 Posts
dont the top 2 players in each group advance and go on to premier league? how is that not incentive to try? | ||
|
InvictusRage
United States230 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote: my response this argument in a previous post: i don't agree with what you're saying. if players are more motivated to win because the mafia is threatening their families, i don't think that's a good thing. clearly that's on another level of morality and ethics, but my point is that there's black and white and then there are grey areas. this is a grey area and i'm just pointing out what i think are some legitimate issues with conducting business that way. and again, it's not even "morals." it's just that if i were running a SC2 tournament, i would want to respect the players by maintaining the primacy of their talent, skill and performance over their greed or backhanded dealing with other players. because why am i giving out a prize then? to reward naniwa for being clever in business? it's not a business tournament To be clear, I think you and I are having a fine conversation about an interesting topic, and I hope this experience is as positive for you as it is for me. I think the mafia example is just fine as an example, I just don't believe it shows what you want it to. I take your point to be that some kinds of motivating other players should just be off the table and unacceptable. I agree; doing things that would be, independently of the circumstance and structure, unacceptable would still be unacceptable ways of motivating opponents. That's what happening in the mafia example; they're doing a bad thing, and that thing is still bad when it's used to motivate players. It's not bad because it's being used to motivate players; motivating players is entirely independent of why it's bad. This is a case where Naniwa is paying somebody. Naniwa has legitimately won a lot of money, and looks to win more; his paying people is totally fine. He's not undercutting the sport or making the game worse for the viewers by promising to pay somebody. I would think that the way to maintain the primacy of the talent, skill and performance of the players is to have maximally motivated players. Blizz is in kind of a bad spot with respect to WCS; they want to change things but that will screw up the structure already in place. It would be better if challenger league participants had more motivation than they currently do. Naniwa, for self-interested reasons, is giving some of those participants more motivation. Yay, I say. The games will be better for it. | ||
| ||
