EPTNaniwa offers Bounty to whoever beats Revival - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
| ||
|
will216
United States185 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 29 2013 04:19 75 wrote: it would be pretty awesome if naniwa means that for real. its at least a cool tweet. i like how some people really complain about that. all about drama Even if its not real; lighthearted shit talking is very much a +9001 for me. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
| ||
|
Waise
3165 Posts
On October 29 2013 04:13 Noobity wrote: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5962435&campaign=rss&source=NFLHeadlines The only difference is that these are offered by teams and not individuals. This actually happens a lot, and in fact I bet it happens in some eSports pro contracts too. I can't guarantee it, but just using the recent EG documentary, Alex Garfield made a comment that HuK's (2012?) contract was in no way incentive based. That implies that there are incentive based contracts out there. There are a few reasons this could be sketchy. First of all it's essentially a team-kill situation, so while Alliance is not technically EG, I don't think Mr. Garfield would be particularly keen on this type of outward response. I can't say for sure, and obviously this is just an assumption, but I wouldn't want one of my players offering money to directly affect one of my other players. Additionally, this isn't really a contract situation and Naniwa doesn't need to put his money where his mouth is. He can say whatever he wants and while anyone might take Revival out, he wouldn't be required to pay up. However, I think it's a relatively harmless thing to say in the first place. Realistically, anyone going to a tournament is going to try their best, so it's almost unnecessary to say at all that he's offering money to whoever takes revival out because if you're not going to do your best at the tournament you shouldn't really be there, no? There's still a much larger prize available for winning IEM than the measly $500 Naniwa's offering. contract incentives are not anywhere close to what naniwa is doing here. blizzard is not naniwa's or revival's employer, they're a company running a tournament with a prize pool. the jets and mark sanchez are two parties involved in an employer-employee contract. naniwa and revival are two parties who signed up for a tournament where the prizes are paid out by a third party. there's just no analogue at all in either concept or legality the legitimacy of the tournament (at least, i would imagine, in most people's eyes) depends partly on the competition being based on skill at the sport in question. an employer giving an employee bonuses for doing well makes sense, because it's an internal bonus based on a common interest - obviously the player and the team both want themselves and each other to do well because they share their success. a competitor bribing other competitors to play harder against a rival is shady | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12179 Posts
On October 29 2013 04:24 Waise wrote: well, one of the factors was pointed out by another poster, which is that it's unfair to revival for naniwa to be offering extra incentives. what is revival supposed to do? counter-offer? I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming. | ||
|
Waise
3165 Posts
On October 29 2013 04:31 Nebuchad wrote: I fail to understand how it is unfair for a player that his opponents try their best to beat him. I thought that was the whole goal of, you know, competitive gaming. do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"? as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12179 Posts
On October 29 2013 04:34 Waise wrote: do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"? as i said at the bottom of my post (which i'm sure you didn't read), if you don't care, you don't care. that's fine. but if you want big tournaments like wcs and blizzcon to be successful, you should want them to be conducted professionally, because sponsors aren't going to throw money at a tournament that allows this kind of thing you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
 | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
| ||
|
trinxified
Canada7774 Posts
If they weren't trying to win, then that's technically letting Revival win, which should be more of an issue. | ||
|
Waise
3165 Posts
On October 29 2013 04:37 Nebuchad wrote: No, I don't realize at all what this has to do with maphack. And since I don't really believe in people who are born with the ability to move units on a screen, I'm pretty sure that the people who play best are also the people who try the hardest. yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense | ||
|
igay
Australia1178 Posts
| ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
you realize of course you could use the same logic to justify maphacking or really anything else? there are either rules or there aren't That doesn't make any sense. "Play your hardest" is not the same thing as "cheat." Its the difference between Naniwa offering a small bonus to the winner to increase motivation, and Naninwa texting Revival's opponent information during the game. | ||
|
MstrSplntr
Canada43 Posts
On October 29 2013 04:34 Waise wrote: do you think the winner of a starcraft tournament should be the one who plays best at starcraft or the one who "tries the hardest to win"? Stop trolling. | ||
|
Waise
3165 Posts
On October 29 2013 04:40 awesomoecalypse wrote: That doesn't make any sense. "Play your hardest" is not the same thing as "cheat." Its the difference between Naniwa offering a small bonus to the winner to increase motivation, and Naninwa texting Revival's opponent information during the game. he didn't say "play your hardest," he said "do what it takes to win." naniwa offering money to another is not "playing starcraft" at all so i don't comprehend what your point is. if paying another player is "playing starcraft" because it helps you win, how is that different from maphacking? people maphack so they'll win. they're trying to win. i will gladly reply to you if you make a real post | ||
|
Iceman331
United States1306 Posts
On October 29 2013 04:39 Waise wrote: yeah i refuse to believe this isn't trolling. if you're not trolling, try to think a bit more critically about my post, otherwise i can't even engage your nonsense You are a funny guy, really. Thank you for the amusement. | ||
|
habeck
1120 Posts
| ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
Who else would do this? Maybe only a couple of other players would have the courage to take 'destiny' in their own hands, rather than be 'normal' and let Revival roll over unmotivated competition. And compared to those other few players who would have the courage to do it, Naniwa is also extremely good in SC2. Personality + sick skills = Nani I couldn't be friends with anyone who doesn't respect how this guy fights for himself. | ||
| ||
