|
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.
Because clearly anyone who was bribed would automatically win, right? Nice argument against a strawman.
|
On October 30 2013 02:35 Martijn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:21 Plansix wrote: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.
seems kinda hard to point to a single match in particular since naniwa's last wcs point grabber was probably iem
hyun definitely stood to gain something by beating naniwa, in terms of wcs
life didn't, but he won anyways so that probably isn't relevant
don't remember who naniwa faced beforehand
but if we restrict to wcs challenger league
forgg had no chance to make it and naniwa did when they played the bracket ro16 match
then there's the whole thing about revival being invited as a replacement to iem
so shit gets pretty messy
|
On October 30 2013 02:51 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival?
|
On October 30 2013 02:51 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
No you didn't. You just said his opponents might be more modivated. That's not proof of unfairness. You can't prove they are not inspired to win right now. Your whole theory centers around the idea theses players don't want to win unless they are going to get money for winning, but you have not proven it.
|
I don't like Naniwa at all, but this is awesome!
|
Does anyone already point out the fact that Naniwa got 100 points from his Challenger League while Revival could gain only 50 points? Challenger League favored him more than Revival... lol
|
On October 30 2013 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:51 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival?
Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's.
|
On October 30 2013 02:53 dangthatsright wrote:
so shit gets pretty messy
Shit isn't messy at all. There's nothing happening, but since Naniwa is in the eye of the absence of storm, people start blowing in every direction (Naniwa creates unfair advantage! Revival shouldn't have gotten points from IEM!) in order to imitate wind.
Wooooo. It's making the trees rustle like living things!
|
On October 30 2013 02:40 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:36 Plansix 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. 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?
I don't. Pardon me for not finding the source on this, but there has been studies on this topic. It's been shown that offering extra rewards only has an effect on straightforward manual labour. In things that require mental effort, it can even have the exact opposite effect.
Of course, if the players will just forfeit without any consequences otherwise, you could say offering a reward improves their play.
|
On October 30 2013 02:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:51 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. No you didn't. You just said his opponents might be more modivated. That's not proof of unfairness. You can't prove they are not inspired to win right now. Your whole theory centers around the idea theses players don't want to win unless they are going to get money for winning, but you have not proven it.
They might be, they might not be. Clearly Naniwa thinks offering a bounty increased Revival's chances of losing. Apparently you don't seem to agree.
|
On October 30 2013 02:56 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:51 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival? Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's.
Wow... you really are arguing that players should play worse and not better.
|
On October 30 2013 02:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:56 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:51 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival? Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's. Wow... you really are arguing that players should play worse and not better.
Wow.. you really are good at putting words in other people's mouth. Do you know for a fact that they would play worse without the bounty?
|
On October 30 2013 02:56 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:51 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival? Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's.
Once again, how does that make it unfair? The game has not changed. You keep taking in circles, but provide no real reason why Revivial will be at a disadvantage in his matches.
|
On October 30 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:56 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:51 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival? Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's. Once again, how does that make it unfair? The game has not changed. You keep taking in circles, but provide no real reason why Revivial will be at a disadvantage in his matches.
You keep repeating that the game and the players hasn't changed, and ignore the fact that financial incentives impact performance.
|
On October 30 2013 03:00 Storm71 wrote:
Wow.. you really are good at putting words in other people's mouth. Do you know for a fact that they would play worse without the bounty?
On October 30 2013 03:01 Storm71 wrote:
You keep repeating that the game and the players hasn't changed, and ignore the fact that financial incentives impact performance.
I sense a disturbance in the debate force
|
I feel that I am in the midst of a star trek convention and someone just said that kirk is a better captain than picard.
|
On October 30 2013 02:58 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 02:55 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:51 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. No you didn't. You just said his opponents might be more modivated. That's not proof of unfairness. You can't prove they are not inspired to win right now. Your whole theory centers around the idea theses players don't want to win unless they are going to get money for winning, but you have not proven it. They might be, they might not be. Clearly Naniwa thinks offering a bounty increased Revival's chances of losing. Apparently you don't seem to agree.
Its clear that Naniwa wants to give Revival a hard time by jabbing him with a bounty on Twitter so they can shit talk with each other before their tie breakers.
If Naniwa really wanted to backroom deal his way to the top ranks he would not be doing it out in the fucking open.
And no, we don't know how hard Select and Snow are working on their matchups. For all we know they're just playing call of duty instead of practicing. Or maybe they think this is their last chance to make a splash in SC2 before the winter sets in and we simply focus purely on Blizzcon.
The worse case scenario for this bounty is that players who are expected to play their best actually do play their best.
|
On October 30 2013 03:01 Storm71 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 02:56 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 02:51 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 02:48 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Of course it would make it harder for Revival. Because the opponents would play better. Why would you be against something that makes people play better? How is your opponents doing their best an unfair match for Revival? Because no one else had to face opponents who were bribed by a third party. Naniwa's opponents in challenger didn't have a Blizzcon spot on the line, and neither does Revival's. Once again, how does that make it unfair? The game has not changed. You keep taking in circles, but provide no real reason why Revivial will be at a disadvantage in his matches. You keep repeating that the game and the players hasn't changed, and ignore the fact that financial incentives impact performance.
Yep, because it true, but that's not unfair to Revival. He still has to beat the same players.
|
On October 30 2013 03:03 MrLightning wrote:
I feel that I am in the midst of a star trek convention and someone just said that kirk is a better captain than picard.
No love for Janeway? None at all? + Show Spoiler +The correct answer is Sulu fyi 
|
On October 30 2013 02:57 Nebuchad wrote:Shit isn't messy at all. There's nothing happening, but since Naniwa is in the eye of the absence of storm, people start blowing in every direction (Naniwa creates unfair advantage! Revival shouldn't have gotten points from IEM!) in order to imitate wind. Wooooo. It's making the trees rustle like living things!
well I meant that if someone wants to actually put together all those recent results and evaluate them under whatever notion of "fairness" they're using, then that process gets rather annoying quickly because of all these things
that was very lazy wording on my part though
I do agree that this shouldn't be an issue
especially with revival not taking offense
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
