|
On October 30 2013 02:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:14 Martijn wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 xHaroldx wrote:
Because i believe when Nani played his matches, nobody knew their seeding would be meaningless. That I can dismiss. My players have known for much longer than that. On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:On October 30 2013 00:09 Storm71 wrote:
I didn't see anyone offering a bounty to Naniwa's opponents when HE was playing his challenger league matches.
LOL @ the notion that this isn't shady. I don't see anything wrong with it. Why should Revival face an additional hurdle in Challenger League when nobody else had to? Bounties such as this undermines fair competition. Hopefully, it was just a joke by Naniwa and he wasn't serious. What additional hurdle? He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you? Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? Naniwa was in the same position as Revival this season. How is it fair for Naniwa to play against players who have no incentive to win, but not Revival? Wait when? I need proof that the match that qualified Naniwa for Blizzcon was played against someone who did stand to win anything. I am not sure that is correct at all.
Someone will have to double check the math to confirm, but without the points Naniwa got from his run this last season, he would've been out. All I can definitely say is that my players already knew, so I surely assume Nani did. I'm certain because I had to explain it to my players before the last seasons qualifier.
|
On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:
[quote]
I don't see anything wrong with it. Why should Revival face an additional hurdle in Challenger League when nobody else had to? Bounties such as this undermines fair competition. Hopefully, it was just a joke by Naniwa and he wasn't serious. What additional hurdle? He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you? Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition.
Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
|
On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 00:57 NovemberstOrm wrote:
[quote]
I don't see anything wrong with it. Why should Revival face an additional hurdle in Challenger League when nobody else had to? Bounties such as this undermines fair competition. Hopefully, it was just a joke by Naniwa and he wasn't serious. What additional hurdle? He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you? Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition.
Because the players will magically become better with $500 on the line.
|
On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
Why should Revival face an additional hurdle in Challenger League when nobody else had to?
Bounties such as this undermines fair competition. Hopefully, it was just a joke by Naniwa and he wasn't serious. What additional hurdle? He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you? Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
|
This forfeiting the challenger league without any consequences is making a farce out of the whole challenger league I feel. Once word was out that it wouldn't necessarily give you a spot in the premier league the challenger league EU went downhill pretty quickly and that is something Blizzard really shouldn't have allowed, because it clearly damages their tournament.
Forfeits for no good reason* should prohibit the player from participating in Season 1 altogether. Throwing matches is not what SC2 needs.
Other than that I can't believe how much Naniwa is keeping this forum active, be it through qualification probabilities or simply funny tweets. 30 pages already because of this joke?? Insane!
*Attending your own funeral is the only valid reason I can think of.
|
On October 30 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
Why should Revival face an additional hurdle in Challenger League when nobody else had to?
Bounties such as this undermines fair competition. Hopefully, it was just a joke by Naniwa and he wasn't serious. What additional hurdle? He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you? Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Because the players will magically become better with $500 on the line.
No, not better, just perform better. Do you not believe that financial incentives has an impact on performance?
|
On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 01:22 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
Why should Revival face an additional hurdle in Challenger League when nobody else had to?
Bounties such as this undermines fair competition. Hopefully, it was just a joke by Naniwa and he wasn't serious. What additional hurdle? He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you? Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair?
For a minute assuming that is actually the correct group. Taeja forfeited his bracket phase match already. Otherwise it could've been Minigun in his place. So now you'd have a player who forfeited a match that would've landed him in Premier looking to take out Revival (and only Revival) specifically. That doesn't sit uneasy with you?
|
On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
What additional hurdle?
He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you? Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
What hurdle? Playing against the same players he would normally face without the bounty only they do their best instead? I just don't see how that is bad.
|
On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
What additional hurdle?
He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you? Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
|
On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 01:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
What additional hurdle?
He faces off against the same people he normally would had there been no bet. You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you? Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad.
No other challenger league players have to face the hurdle of their opponent playing for a spot at Blizzcon, so Revival is clearly the one with the incentive. He has a $5,000 incentive, they have $500. Unfair to them.
|
On October 30 2013 02:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you?
Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad. But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500.
You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
|
On October 30 2013 02:43 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:10 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
You don't think there's a difference between facing players with no incentive to win and facing players who are being paid $500 to beat you?
Clearly Naniwa thought offering a bounty would increase Revival's chance of losing. Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad. No other challenger league players have to face the hurdle of their opponent playing for a spot at Blizzcon, so Revival is clearly the one with the incentive. He has a $5,000 incentive, they have $500. Unfair to them.
What about the players Naniwa faced in challenger?
Luckily for Naniwa, no one was bribing the players HE faced.
|
On October 30 2013 02:44 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:41 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad. But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500. You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
Of course he does, he just made this argument a few posts earlier:
Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win?
|
On October 30 2013 02:44 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:41 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad. But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500. You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
And you would rather Select and Jon SNow play lazier than harder?
|
On October 30 2013 02:44 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:41 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad. But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500. You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line?
What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
|
|
|
On October 30 2013 02:46 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:43 Lonyo wrote:On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:12 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, but why is Revival entitled to match against players who have no incentive to win? How is it unfair to him in any way? He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad. No other challenger league players have to face the hurdle of their opponent playing for a spot at Blizzcon, so Revival is clearly the one with the incentive. He has a $5,000 incentive, they have $500. Unfair to them. What about the players Naniwa faced in challenger? Luckily for Naniwa, no one was bribing the players HE faced.
Clearly, that's why he won. If ForGG was bribed, he would have just decided not to lose.
|
On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:44 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:41 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad. But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500. You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line? What did your teachers tell you about answering a question with another question? It's bad. I fail to see how it is unfair. It's the same game and same players. You haven't provided any reason to think the $500 will make the games unfair. What are your reasons? How will it change the matches and players?
I already stated that providing a $500 bounty makes the matches harder for Revival. But you just want to argue semantics instead of actually acknowledging what I posted.
|
On October 30 2013 02:49 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:46 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:43 Lonyo wrote:On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad. No other challenger league players have to face the hurdle of their opponent playing for a spot at Blizzcon, so Revival is clearly the one with the incentive. He has a $5,000 incentive, they have $500. Unfair to them. What about the players Naniwa faced in challenger? Luckily for Naniwa, no one was bribing the players HE faced. Clearly, that's why he won. If ForGG was bribed, he would have just decided not to lose.
Maybe Hyun was bribed too? Maybe everyone in IEM was bribed, only Life didn't take the money!
This is getting... no, this IS silly.
|
On October 30 2013 02:48 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:44 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:41 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:38 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:34 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:28 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:16 Storm71 wrote:
[quote]
He shouldn't have to worry about a third party giving his opponents an extra incentive. No other sc2 pro who was fighting for a Blizzcon spot had to face that hurdle. Why? What about the players who got points and qualified against player who stood to win 10K or more in prize money? What if the girl he liked agreed to go on a date with him if he won? Is that bad too? There's a huge distinction between competing for tournament prize money and being a mercenary for someone else. A mercenary is someeone you pay to go after someone. Naniwa is not paying people to change the matchups. Revival will face the same players whether or not a bounty is out. Unless of course, Taeja changes his mind about forfeiting an otherwise meaningless match for him. Like I said, that's what bounties from third parties do, they present extra hurdles for players and distorts fair competition. Wait, so giving incentives so that players who left the group comes back into the group is bad and unfair? No, that's not what I posted. Distorting fair competition is bad. Giving players an extra hurdle which no other sc2 pro had to face is bad. But you haven't provided any reason why is distortes fair competition. It's the same players, same game. One player might b play "harder", but they don't gain an advantage from the $500. You don't think it's easier to beat someone who has no incentive vs someone with $500 on the line? And you would rather Select and Jon SNow play lazier than harder?
No, I would rather the matches be played without any of the players acting as a mercenary for a third party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
