|
United States23455 Posts
On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it. You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
|
after Revival makes it to Blizzcon to play Naniwa at the tiebreaker, he should wear a shirt with his own bounty poster on it
|
On October 30 2013 04:09 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 04:08 Acrofales wrote:On October 30 2013 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 03:55 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 03:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 30 2013 03:42 Darkhoarse wrote:On October 30 2013 03:40 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 03:35 Storm71 wrote:On October 30 2013 03:34 Plansix wrote:On October 30 2013 03:32 Storm71 wrote: [quote]
Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So ForGG played worse and didn't care Naniwa win because he wasn't going to get $500? Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all. Well I guess Revival will have to man up and play some really good Starcraft with the terrible, unfair shadow of this 500 bounty over his head. I really hope he can handle the pressure of such a high stakes match. Big money is on the line. It is pretty high stakes for Revival data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" because if he wins he gets a shot at the Blizzcon prize pool. But barring some serious KR/NA lag going on, I don't see Revival losing this group anyway. $5,000 bounty on select, jon snow, and Naniwa is apparently less than the $500 bounty on Revival. There's a difference between a prize pool and a bounty. And that aside, you're still wrong about the $5000; Revival can only earn the 5K if he beats Naniwa in a best of 5 at Blizzcon before the main tournament. $5000 is still a bigger number than $500, so not fair for select and Jon. What's unfair about it? Without Naniwa's bounty they stood to gain 0 dollars. Now Naniwa is offering $500 bucks to anybody beating Revival. That Naniwa himself stands to gain MORE is completely irrelevant. Storm71 convinced me that unless Naniwa offers 5k its not a fair fight for other players in group. lol
you're right. whoever comes first in Revival's challenger group should make it to Blizzcon ROFL
|
I really hope this is in satire because he is obviously joking. If you remember not too long ago he posted pics of a WCS challenger player betting against himself, calling him out.
|
On October 30 2013 04:26 mikumegurine wrote: after Revival makes it to Blizzcon to play Naniwa at the tiebreaker, he should wear a shirt with his own bounty poster on it
That would be awesome. It would get everyone talking. GET ON IT!
|
On October 30 2013 04:32 MrSusan wrote: I really hope this is in satire because he is obviously joking. If you remember not too long ago he posted pics of a WCS challenger player betting against himself, calling him out.
That is a completely different situation. I can't believe how ignorant some people are.
Betting against yourself = bad (matchfixing) Taking money to lose = bad (matchfixing) Offering someone else money to lose = bad (matchfixing) Offering someone else money to win = good (gambling / motivation trigger) Betting for yourself = good (gambling / motivation trigger)
It isn't that hard people.....
edit for some clearer perspectives.
|
On October 30 2013 04:25 Darkhoarse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it. You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
yeah, from reading this thread anyway lol. Have you seen the ridiculous reasons and hypothetical scenarios they paint? It's kind of obivous from most of them.
|
On October 30 2013 03:35 Storm71 wrote: Maybe, we can't know for sure. But it's erroneous to assume that financial incentives make no difference at all.
On October 30 2013 03:32 Storm71 wrote: Which again assumes that financial incentives have no impact on performance.
So we should automatically assume said incentives do have an effect?
Besides, does it even matter? These are professional competitors we're talking about. Trying their best is what they should be doing already. The problem is with WCS if they aren't.
|
On October 29 2013 03:23 Assirra wrote: Can't win on your own? Hire in help. Pretty sad tbh. Obviously a joke..
|
who cares. get paid to win a match? bout time.
|
On October 30 2013 04:25 Darkhoarse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it. You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O
Judging from the fact that the comment has no real impact whatsoever, to construe any negativity is pretty indicative of bias. I can't help but be indifferent both to Naniwa, and this tweet. Because it's just a stupid head line. People go ape shit over the dumbest of causes.
|
United States23455 Posts
On October 30 2013 06:30 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 04:25 Darkhoarse wrote:On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it. You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O Judging from the fact that the comment has no real impact whatsoever, to construe any negativity is pretty indicative of bias. I can't help but be indifferent both to Naniwa, and this tweet. Because it's just a stupid head line. People go ape shit over the dumbest of causes. I disagree with you there. Because people can legitimately dislike having players paying bounties for other players, when that should be the tournament's job. I think people would be upset if the situation was reversed and Revival said this just as much.
|
On October 30 2013 06:34 Darkhoarse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 06:30 rd wrote:On October 30 2013 04:25 Darkhoarse wrote:On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it. You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O Judging from the fact that the comment has no real impact whatsoever, to construe any negativity is pretty indicative of bias. I can't help but be indifferent both to Naniwa, and this tweet. Because it's just a stupid head line. People go ape shit over the dumbest of causes. I disagree with you there. Because people can legitimately dislike having players paying bounties for other players, when that should be the tournament's job. I think people would be upset if the situation was reversed and Revival said this just as much.
This is not players paying bounties for other players. This is a single player paying a single bounty against one single other player. This is Naniwa putting out a tweet to bring attention to a problem in WCS, while also grabbing a spotlight for himself. Generalizing this as some kind of over-arching issue of players paying bounties just confuses what's actually happening, and TBH, if you have to formulate an opinion and take a side on some metaphorical fence, and make this an "issue," you are either ridiculously short sighted, or are just biased. Neither description is positive.
|
United States23455 Posts
On October 30 2013 06:40 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 06:34 Darkhoarse wrote:On October 30 2013 06:30 rd wrote:On October 30 2013 04:25 Darkhoarse wrote:On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it. You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O Judging from the fact that the comment has no real impact whatsoever, to construe any negativity is pretty indicative of bias. I can't help but be indifferent both to Naniwa, and this tweet. Because it's just a stupid head line. People go ape shit over the dumbest of causes. I disagree with you there. Because people can legitimately dislike having players paying bounties for other players, when that should be the tournament's job. I think people would be upset if the situation was reversed and Revival said this just as much. This is not players paying bounties for other players. This is a single player paying a single bounty against one single other player. This is Naniwa putting out a tweet to bring attention to a problem in WCS, while also grabbing a spotlight for himself. Generalizing this as some kind of over-arching issue of players paying bounties just confuses what's actually happening, and TBH, if you have to formulate an opinion and take a side on some metaphorical fence, and make this an "issue," you are either ridiculously short sighted, or are just biased. Neither description is positive. Well I can see that you just got out of your Philosophy 101 class and want to drop the pain on some nerd online so I'll get out of your way. Enjoy yourself.
|
If as some people say it is unfair because now Revivals opponents are more motivated, then I would say it proofs Naniwa's point and shows it was (sadly) required, since otherwise his opponents aren't properly motivated to beat him, and it would be unfair to Naniwa.
500 dollar is significant enough to matter, not significant enough to be a big deal.
|
On October 30 2013 06:40 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 06:34 Darkhoarse wrote:On October 30 2013 06:30 rd wrote:On October 30 2013 04:25 Darkhoarse wrote:On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it. You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O Judging from the fact that the comment has no real impact whatsoever, to construe any negativity is pretty indicative of bias. I can't help but be indifferent both to Naniwa, and this tweet. Because it's just a stupid head line. People go ape shit over the dumbest of causes. I disagree with you there. Because people can legitimately dislike having players paying bounties for other players, when that should be the tournament's job. I think people would be upset if the situation was reversed and Revival said this just as much. This is not players paying bounties for other players. This is a single player paying a single bounty against one single other player. This is Naniwa putting out a tweet to bring attention to a problem in WCS, while also grabbing a spotlight for himself. Generalizing this as some kind of over-arching issue of players paying bounties just confuses what's actually happening, and TBH, if you have to formulate an opinion and take a side on some metaphorical fence, and make this an "issue," you are either ridiculously short sighted, or are just biased. Neither description is positive.
I completely agree. Naniwa's tweet was completely meaningless, and nobody should have any opinion regarding it at all. Those who do are obviously short sighted and/or biased. Thank you for educating the ignorant masses, I sincerely appreciate it.
|
On October 30 2013 06:50 Sissors wrote: If as some people say it is unfair because now Revivals opponents are more motivated, then I would say it proofs Naniwa's point and shows it was (sadly) required, since otherwise his opponents aren't properly motivated to beat him, and it would be unfair to Naniwa.
500 dollar is significant enough to matter, not significant enough to be a big deal.
How is it unfair to Naniwa? Were his opponents motivated to beat him in challenger season 3? LOL
|
On October 30 2013 04:54 SamuelGreen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2013 04:25 Darkhoarse wrote:On October 30 2013 04:15 SamuelGreen wrote: I don't think its any idea for us who like this incentive, to argue against the people who hate Naniwa (and thus are against it), so just stop arguing about it. You just assume everyone who doesn't like player given bounties only has that view because they hate Naniwa? o_O yeah, from reading this thread anyway lol. Have you seen the ridiculous reasons and hypothetical scenarios they paint? It's kind of obivous from most of them.
I'm a huge Naniwa fan and I can at the very least admit that this is a huge grey area. As I've said earlier in this thread if we asume that the practice time for a player is limited and we also asume that they normally practice for every possible opponents in what have become the standard style group. Then we can pretty easily conclude that giving an extra monetary incentive definitely can effect how that player prepares thus giving the individual a potential way to with money give himself a better chance.
I'm not saying people would try harder IN the game, I think they might focus their limited time preparing differently with this extra incentive. The question then is, do we want the individual to be able to have this effect? Is it fair given that not everyone can afford to do so?. Is the extra hype worth this grey area?
I want Nani to go to blizzcon badly, I have followed WCS closely the last months with this as the prime thing on my mind. But I am definitely not sure that this is acceptable.. I was at first but then I read someones way of arguing in this thread and came to this conclusion. If you agree that it''s a problem or not is one thing but I can't see how you can disagree on that it can actually effect performance cause yes, obviously it can given that the players don't have unlimited time to practice.
In a 1v1 scenario (non group play) I think the effect would be severaly diminished though.
|
Was thinking about doing it , then..... he say in sc2
|
i cant believe there are people delusional enough to say its bad naniwa put a bounty on revival holy flying jesus cheesecake
|
|
|
|