|
United Kingdom50293 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:35 mikumegurine wrote:
why is there no incentive for players to try in the challenger league group stage?
dont the top 2 players advance and go on to premier league?
how is that not incentive to try?
Nope, god only knows what's happening the only thing that is known is that no one from challenger gets into premier next season so there's nothing to play for.
|
On October 29 2013 05:30 Pirfiktshon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:14 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:03 Norzma wrote:On October 29 2013 04:52 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:
Paying players to play their hardest is not against the rules, you sure about that? that's the nature of the entire debate. i would not be surprised at all if blizzard came out and made a ruling against this based on some conditions of the tournament signups. so yes, they could declare this to be against the rules if they chose to On October 29 2013 04:45 awesomoecalypse wrote:because if it was no team could offer salaries and no tournament could offer rewards. that's not correct and doesn't make sense. naniwa's team is his employer, employers give employees bonuses if they perform well. a tournament is a competition that pays out to the best competitor. both are standard business and neither is related to players gambling or bribing amongst each other. the point you're missing is that it's not just for $500. it's also for all the potential and guaranteed prize money and benefits of making it to blizzcon. if this were over a showmatch, there wouldn't be an issue. but naniwa is trying to make an investment of $500 to ensure that blizzcon prize pools are more likely available to him and not revival. that is the issue to put it another way: i'm revival. i sign on to tournaments because my understanding is that blizzard will reward me for performing well at their game. i practice and play to the best of my ability. but my opponent has a higher potential prize than me because of naniwa. i will never have access to naniwa's $500. therefore the issue is that i am no longer competing on an equal footing with my opponent or naniwathe concern is blizzard's, if anyone's. like i said, it's not about morality but about professionalism and legitimacy However Naniwa is just offering an incentive for other players that has NOTHING to gain from winning their group over revival. Revival himself has his incentive already, if he wins he gets to play naniwa in a tiebreaker to enter the final 16 at blizzcon. A incentive wont make revival play worse. A incentive will make the other players take that group more serious. 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. On October 29 2013 05:04 Pirfiktshon wrote:Seriously? Seriously? People are taking issue with this? I wish the mods would ban the Nay sayers from this thread. Naniwa isn't doing anything illegal he is giving players extra incentive to ensure his trip to blizzcon. He is doing it in a light hearted manner that actually WILL come up during IEM and will make the game that much more interesting to watch so to all the nay-sayers go post another "Why is Sc2 Dying" Thread please and leave eSports to have some fun Please and Thank You  you literally want me to be banned because i don't agree with your opinion? On October 29 2013 05:05 Iceman331 wrote:
Can we stop feeding the troll please..... 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......
i don't think you actually read my posts, because on multiple occasions i said that i don't actually care if naniwa tries this, nor do i think it's morally wrong. what i've been saying from the beginning is that i think it's poor sportsmanship and poor business by blizzard to tolerate it. whom am i "condemning"? seriously? all i've done is post viewpoints and arguments. can you point to a post where i said "naniwa is a scumbag"/"ban naniwa from tournaments"/"i hope naniwa gets cancer"/anything like that?
|
On October 29 2013 05:36 Fusilero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:35 mikumegurine wrote:
why is there no incentive for players to try in the challenger league group stage?
dont the top 2 players advance and go on to premier league?
how is that not incentive to try? Nope, god only knows what's happening the only thing that is known is that no one from challenger gets into premier next season so there's nothing to play for.
hmm the Q&A with blizzard doesnt seem to be clear on what they want to do
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=432243
|
United Kingdom50293 Posts
On October 29 2013 05:37 mikumegurine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:36 Fusilero wrote:On October 29 2013 05:35 mikumegurine wrote:
why is there no incentive for players to try in the challenger league group stage?
dont the top 2 players advance and go on to premier league?
how is that not incentive to try? Nope, god only knows what's happening the only thing that is known is that no one from challenger gets into premier next season so there's nothing to play for. didnt Blizzard say 2014 was going to be the same unless they announce something?
Well the pros are saying that challenger doesn't give seeds for premier.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=430958
|
On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse 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. 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 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.
If he understands it, it seems he likes to flip-flop on the issue as well.
|
On October 29 2013 05:34 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +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?
The scandals aren't about side bets. Some bets are different than others. It is generally accepted that players should not make bets that place their financial interests in opposition to their competitive interests. But bets that do not do that are pretty common, well-known, and do not cause scandals.
Sometimes players screw up and make bets that incentive them to sacrifice their competitive chances in some way or other to make the player more money. Those cause scandals.
This case is not like those cases, because Naniwa is not undercutting anyone's motivation to win.
|
On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse 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. 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 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.
I don't get it either. Is the $500 really going to tip the scale and make Revival lose?
|
On October 29 2013 05:38 Fusilero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:37 mikumegurine wrote:On October 29 2013 05:36 Fusilero wrote:On October 29 2013 05:35 mikumegurine wrote:
why is there no incentive for players to try in the challenger league group stage?
dont the top 2 players advance and go on to premier league?
how is that not incentive to try? Nope, god only knows what's happening the only thing that is known is that no one from challenger gets into premier next season so there's nothing to play for. didnt Blizzard say 2014 was going to be the same unless they announce something? Well the pros are saying that challenger doesn't give seeds for premier. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=430958
yea not sure what Blizzard wants to do
in their Q&A they say bracket challenger league "might" go into premier
dont even mention group stage at all
and they said that it will be determined by whether or not they do region-lock (which didnt they say are not doing this drastic change in 2014)?
|
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote:
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.
by all means i think you're far and away the most respectful and pleasant person i'm talking to in this thread
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: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. well, of course. that's what it comes down to. my value judgments of what's "bad" against yours. i've been trying to lay out why i think it's bad in a few different ways. i think it makes the tournament less interesting because it's no longer about passion for competing at a skillful pursuit. some people think this is more interesting - i don't quite understand why, but i don't object to their right to feel that way. i also theorized that it's bad for blizzard. a few people have argued against it by saying that it's commonplace in other sports. they may be right or wrong, no one has really given me a good link or source, but even if they did it wouldn't properly be proof because you can succeed based on the popularity of a sport even if "bad" things happen. MLB is pretty widely maligned for the way they handle rules and league structuring, but it's still popular because people like baseball. that doesn't mean they're doing everything right. but i digress
On October 29 2013 05:36 InvictusRage wrote: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.
i just think that if there really is an issue with player motivation (and i don't necessarily think there is), it's blizzard's responsibility, not naniwa's. naniwa has a clear personal interest in what he's doing, otherwise he would just be offering money to challenger players regardless of how it affects him.
probably the biggest reason i take issue with the "it's increasing motivation" argument is because naniwa offering money to people who beat his rivals isn't a consistent or reliable source of motivation. naniwa is doing it for naniwa. in the future, if he has nothing to gain, the status quo returns. so even if it were ethically/professionally acceptable, it's not a solution to anything, and i don't think it benefits anyone but naniwa (and his co-conspirator)
|
On October 29 2013 05:35 mikumegurine wrote:
why is there no incentive for players to try in the challenger league group stage?
dont the top 2 players in each group advance and go on to premier league?
how is that not incentive to try?
because there are rumours about this seasons challenger league basically meaning nothing as next years system is going to be different, and as such, qualifiers has to be reset
|
All this drama is ruining this awesome hype train 
Even if Naniwa will actually give money to the player who beats Revival (most likely this is just talk), those players are *already* trying to beat revival. Naniwa is just telling the world that he cares about the results.
If Naniwa actually wanted to bribe his way to Blizzcon then he wouldn't have made the offer on fucking twitter.
Guys, this is not rocket science, Naniwa is trying to generate hype--lets run with it! When players do what they can to counteract the whole "SC2 is dying" non-sense; we should follow along and have some good old fashion fun again!
|
On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse 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. 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 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.
except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you
it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
|
On October 29 2013 03:25 ACrow wrote:Hahaha, waiting for the counter offer by EG  PP
so EG will no send to money to their european division
|
I can't believe there's actually people trying to argue that there's something sketchy or wrong with Naniwa giving some incentive to players who otherwise would have close to no incentive to do their best. This happens all the time in various sports leagues. If he payed someone to lose I would be first in line to bring out my pitchfork, but this is the complete opposite of that.
You must be a pretty hardcore Anti-Naniwa to competely ignore common sense and logic to try and find something negative in this.
|
so if revival gets into premier does he go to blizzcon instead of naniwa.
|
On October 29 2013 05:47 illusiongamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 03:25 ACrow wrote:Hahaha, waiting for the counter offer by EG PP so EG will no send to money to their european division
Both will make it somehow, someway. 
|
On October 29 2013 03:49 -Kaiser- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 03:38 Waise wrote:
it's probably a joke, but it's still inappropriate. you just can't have participants throwing around prize pools to other participants, the reasons should be obvious
it will probably fly in sc2 because esports isn't serious enough yet, but in any major real sport this would be absolutely grounds for fines/suspensions/etc Implying that players in literally every competitive sport aren't encouraged to take out the star players on other teams.
Except, this isn't like that at all. This isn't a bounty-gate a la New Orleans Saints scenario.
I'd like to think this is essentially the "hey I'll buy you a really expensive beer if you do me a favour" if taken seriously (I don't), and the favour doesn't have a conflict of interest. Nani isn't paying to fix a match.
|
On October 29 2013 05:34 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:27 InvictusRage wrote:
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. 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 it Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:02 InvictusRage wrote:
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. 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 be
Tell me what your concept of fairness is. I take it to be obvious that, from the perspective of competitive fairness or legitimacy, it is totally fine for Koreans to compete with foreigners. I take it to be obvious that, from the perspective of competitive fairness or legitimacy, it is totally fine for people who are very motivated to compete with people who aren't, though I bet those games would be bad in most cases. Why are those differences, which are from a competitive perspective very important, not objectionable differences?
Some rules are important because they are good rules, and some rules are unimportant because they're bad rules. 'No rush 20 minutes' is a bad rule; I don't care at all about people who break it. We have to have some way of determining which rules are good and which rules are bad. Here's my method: the good rules are the ones that tend to cause players to compete at higher levels and show off their skills, imbalanced though they might be. Some players playing in snake pits would be a bad rule; that would keep them from playing their best. What Naniwa is doing is not keeping anyone from playing their best.
If you don't like that method of determining which rules are best, you tell me what your alternative is.
|
On October 29 2013 05:47 Shika wrote:
I can't believe there's actually people trying to argue that there's something sketchy or wrong with Naniwa giving some incentive to players who otherwise would have close to no incentive to do their best. This happens all the time in various sports leagues. If he payed someone to lose I would be first in line to bring out my pitchfork, but this is the complete opposite of that.
You must be a pretty hardcore Anti-Naniwa to competely ignore common sense and logic to try and find something negative in this.
It's also on twitter! He's not exactly trying some back room deal. Can't people understand shit talking when they see it?
|
On October 29 2013 05:46 Waise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2013 05:33 awesomoecalypse wrote:On October 29 2013 05:30 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2013 05:23 Waise wrote:On October 29 2013 05:16 awesomoecalypse 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. 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 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. except for the multiple posts (i think 3 now) where i literally explicitly said "i do not think revival is entitled to players who aren't trying hard"? one of them i'm pretty sure was actually directed at you it's fine if you disagree with me, but if you aren't even going to read my posts it's probably better for the thread that we don't continue arguing. if you're not listening to me, my replies to you might as well be meme spam
So now there is $500 on the line, who cares? Is Naniwa bad because he decided to throw a little money around? I fail to see why any of this matters?
And yes, I read your posts and I still don't see why it matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
