|
Most likely naniwa will own revival and then loose to soulkey 0-3
|
On November 01 2013 17:30 H.R.Giger wrote:
So somehow the first position, Soulkey is the worst of all the top positions due to the fact that this player has to prepare for two opponents, where as the rest of the players on the top positions, only have to prepare against one known opponent ... this kinda sucks for Soulkey.
Not really. You have to remember that the Naniwa and Revival also have less time to prepare for Soulkey (they will prepare more to play each other).
|
Its all because Revival was given free points by ESL...he should never be that high in points, seeing his level of play ...
|
On November 01 2013 17:34 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 17:23 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 16:59 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 15:44 lystier wrote:
I'm wondering if naniwa will pay his bounty to taeja cuz he did beat revival lol Nope, he already broke that promise on twitter. Apparently "beating a player" needs to be construed as "beating a player only if that player does not make it to Blizzcon." Also known as, I'm not guaranteed 5k, so I don't want to pay anything to anyone. pretty obvious that was what he meant. If you thought otherwise, and especially if you didnt reach out to accept and clarify his proposition, you only have yourself to blame. While I appreciate the personal attack /s, I don't see how it's obvious that his words mean something entirely different: He said in his tweet: "offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival". That's pretty unequivocal. It was also the interpretation Taeja had, as he contacted Naniwa over twitter after winning against Revival. In the end, Naniwa made the bounty a thing that people were talking about, then failed to pay it. Which misled a lot of people, including the actual beneficiary - Taeja.
Personal attacks? What?
That's just how the shit works. Unless you confirm this, or a bet, or whatever it's not "live."
That's how things are done. Look at all the bets done over at Liquidpoker. There's offer, there's the person who accepts the offer, and then there is confirmation by the original bettor.
And fuck me, same thing with any contractual obligation. It needs two parties to enter an agreement.
|
On November 01 2013 17:23 1Dhalism wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 16:59 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 15:44 lystier wrote:
I'm wondering if naniwa will pay his bounty to taeja cuz he did beat revival lol Nope, he already broke that promise on twitter. Apparently "beating a player" needs to be construed as "beating a player only if that player does not make it to Blizzcon." Also known as, I'm not guaranteed 5k, so I don't want to pay anything to anyone. pretty obvious that was what he meant. If you thought otherwise, and especially if you didnt reach out to accept and clarify his proposition, you only have yourself to blame.
No. It was not obvious what he meant. Sure, that was Naniwa's final goal. However, any player beating Revival would have been a step towards that goal.
|
Hmmm, thought that Revival forfeited his 2nd place match spot, but w/e, he had his own fair shot..
Guess it's nice to see another match..
However - wonder if Naniwa expected this to happen.. He's a little weird kind of guy, if he thinks that a tourney comes too fast then he doesn't give a f*ck about it whether it being Blizzcon or not, so i'm afraid he wouldn't have prepared.., I mean he's damn brilliant if he has like 2 months to prepare for a tourney, but he can also play terrible games provided by the lack of it..
but come on Nani - at least try to win vs Revival and see you in a group play..
|
I find this to be really bad decisioning by ESL. They just gave someone close to the cutoff a random seed in IEM, which made this possible even without having a good run (Revival dropped out in the first round), whereas Nani got second in a tournament that he fought through the qualifier. ESL should really not give people close to cutoff a seed, as this is just not how a tie should happen.
|
On November 01 2013 18:32 VArsovskiSC wrote:
Hmmm, thought that Revival forfeited his 2nd place match spot, but w/e, he had his own fair shot..
Guess it's nice to see another match..
However - wonder if Naniwa expected this to happen.. He's a little weird kind of guy, if he thinks that a tourney comes too fast then he doesn't give a f*ck about it whether it being Blizzcon or not, so i'm afraid he wouldn't have prepared.., I mean he's damn brilliant if he has like 2 months to prepare for a tourney, but he can also play terrible games provided by the lack of it..
but come on Nani - at least try to win vs Revival and see you in a group play..
I don't think you have to worry about NaNiwa not trying or being ready. He might be abit whiney on twitter, but he is damn good at preparing himself anyway.
Hopefully there will be some good games vs Revival @ the Blizz HQ as a warm up for BlizzCon.
|
How can people say Inno is having an easier time than SK. Duckdeok is way better than Naniwa/Revival
|
On November 01 2013 18:40 robertpires87 wrote:
How can people say Inno is having an easier time than SK. Duckdeok is way better than Naniwa/Revival
Inno is playing vs Duckdeok.
|
On November 01 2013 18:30 1Dhalism wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 17:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 17:23 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 16:59 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 15:44 lystier wrote:
I'm wondering if naniwa will pay his bounty to taeja cuz he did beat revival lol Nope, he already broke that promise on twitter. Apparently "beating a player" needs to be construed as "beating a player only if that player does not make it to Blizzcon." Also known as, I'm not guaranteed 5k, so I don't want to pay anything to anyone. pretty obvious that was what he meant. If you thought otherwise, and especially if you didnt reach out to accept and clarify his proposition, you only have yourself to blame. While I appreciate the personal attack /s, I don't see how it's obvious that his words mean something entirely different: He said in his tweet: "offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival". That's pretty unequivocal. It was also the interpretation Taeja had, as he contacted Naniwa over twitter after winning against Revival. In the end, Naniwa made the bounty a thing that people were talking about, then failed to pay it. Which misled a lot of people, including the actual beneficiary - Taeja. Personal attacks? What? That's just how the shit works. Unless you confirm this, or a bet, or whatever it's not "live." That's how things are done. Look at all the bets done over at Liquidpoker. There's offer, there's the person who accepts the offer, and then there is confirmation by the original bettor. And fuck me, same thing with any contractual obligation. It needs two parties to enter an agreement.
Are you serious? Bets are total different because you are wagering something so you need acceptance from both sides.
Companies like Google put out 'bounties' for people finding bugs/exploit in their software. There is no need to 'accept'. You just report the bug when you find it and you get paid/reward.
And why bring in contractual obligation, no one is saying Naniwa legally has to pay Taeja. It is just bad form...
|
On November 01 2013 15:14 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
Revival's coming!
..... to destroy NaNiwa. 3-0 Revival wins!
^fixed that for ya 
|
|
|
The problem for Naniwa having to play Revival first is that he'll have to show some of his prepared PvZ builds, so Soulkey will get a good look at how Naniwa plays. I think that's a real big disadvantage for Naniwa if he does make it into the brackets. Wouldn't consider only having to practice one matchup as an advantage necessarily.
|
On November 01 2013 18:43 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 18:30 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 17:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 17:23 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 16:59 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 15:44 lystier wrote:
I'm wondering if naniwa will pay his bounty to taeja cuz he did beat revival lol Nope, he already broke that promise on twitter. Apparently "beating a player" needs to be construed as "beating a player only if that player does not make it to Blizzcon." Also known as, I'm not guaranteed 5k, so I don't want to pay anything to anyone. pretty obvious that was what he meant. If you thought otherwise, and especially if you didnt reach out to accept and clarify his proposition, you only have yourself to blame. While I appreciate the personal attack /s, I don't see how it's obvious that his words mean something entirely different: He said in his tweet: "offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival". That's pretty unequivocal. It was also the interpretation Taeja had, as he contacted Naniwa over twitter after winning against Revival. In the end, Naniwa made the bounty a thing that people were talking about, then failed to pay it. Which misled a lot of people, including the actual beneficiary - Taeja. Personal attacks? What? That's just how the shit works. Unless you confirm this, or a bet, or whatever it's not "live." That's how things are done. Look at all the bets done over at Liquidpoker. There's offer, there's the person who accepts the offer, and then there is confirmation by the original bettor. And fuck me, same thing with any contractual obligation. It needs two parties to enter an agreement. Are you serious? Bets are total different because you are wagering something so you need acceptance from both sides. Companies like Google put out 'bounties' for people finding bugs/exploit in their software. There is no need to 'accept'. You just report the bug when you find it and you get paid/reward. And why bring in contractual obligation, no one is saying Naniwa legally has to pay Taeja. It is just bad form...
Companies be companies, people be people. This is more akin to betting 500 against nothing than it is to holding a sweepstakes.
Not to mention that Naniwa was paying for Revival elimination, google's not gonna pay someone for "almost" fixing the bug either will they now.
|
On November 01 2013 18:49 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
The problem for Naniwa having to play Revival first is that he'll have to show some of his prepared PvZ builds, so Soulkey will get a good look at how Naniwa plays. I think that's a real big disadvantage for Naniwa if he does make it into the brackets. Wouldn't consider only having to practice one matchup as an advantage necessarily.
So showing builds is a disadvantage while practicing 1 match up isn't an advantage. That is pretty arbitary. If anything, those 2 things kind of cancel each other out.
|
On November 01 2013 18:51 1Dhalism wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 18:43 vthree wrote:On November 01 2013 18:30 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 17:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 17:23 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 16:59 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 15:44 lystier wrote:
I'm wondering if naniwa will pay his bounty to taeja cuz he did beat revival lol Nope, he already broke that promise on twitter. Apparently "beating a player" needs to be construed as "beating a player only if that player does not make it to Blizzcon." Also known as, I'm not guaranteed 5k, so I don't want to pay anything to anyone. pretty obvious that was what he meant. If you thought otherwise, and especially if you didnt reach out to accept and clarify his proposition, you only have yourself to blame. While I appreciate the personal attack /s, I don't see how it's obvious that his words mean something entirely different: He said in his tweet: "offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival". That's pretty unequivocal. It was also the interpretation Taeja had, as he contacted Naniwa over twitter after winning against Revival. In the end, Naniwa made the bounty a thing that people were talking about, then failed to pay it. Which misled a lot of people, including the actual beneficiary - Taeja. Personal attacks? What? That's just how the shit works. Unless you confirm this, or a bet, or whatever it's not "live." That's how things are done. Look at all the bets done over at Liquidpoker. There's offer, there's the person who accepts the offer, and then there is confirmation by the original bettor. And fuck me, same thing with any contractual obligation. It needs two parties to enter an agreement. Are you serious? Bets are total different because you are wagering something so you need acceptance from both sides. Companies like Google put out 'bounties' for people finding bugs/exploit in their software. There is no need to 'accept'. You just report the bug when you find it and you get paid/reward. And why bring in contractual obligation, no one is saying Naniwa legally has to pay Taeja. It is just bad form... Companies be companies, people be people. This is more akin to betting 500 against nothing than it is to holding a sweepstakes. Not to mention that Naniwa was paying for Revival elimination, google's not gonna pay someone for "almost" fixing the bug either will they now.
You really want to argue this?
Google is not paying someone to FIX the bug. They are paying someone to show them an exploit. That person gets paid regardless of whether Google can fix the bug or not. Eventhough fixing the bug is Google's FINAL goal, the person still gets paid for helping to TRY to reach the final goal.
Let's say you offer a tutor to help you study for a Math exam. Obviously, the final goal is to pass or do well in the exam. But unless you state your condition (getting an A) at the beginning, you will have to pay the tutor regardless of the outcome of the exam,no?
|
On November 01 2013 18:55 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 18:51 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 18:43 vthree wrote:On November 01 2013 18:30 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 17:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 17:23 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 16:59 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 15:44 lystier wrote:
I'm wondering if naniwa will pay his bounty to taeja cuz he did beat revival lol Nope, he already broke that promise on twitter. Apparently "beating a player" needs to be construed as "beating a player only if that player does not make it to Blizzcon." Also known as, I'm not guaranteed 5k, so I don't want to pay anything to anyone. pretty obvious that was what he meant. If you thought otherwise, and especially if you didnt reach out to accept and clarify his proposition, you only have yourself to blame. While I appreciate the personal attack /s, I don't see how it's obvious that his words mean something entirely different: He said in his tweet: "offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival". That's pretty unequivocal. It was also the interpretation Taeja had, as he contacted Naniwa over twitter after winning against Revival. In the end, Naniwa made the bounty a thing that people were talking about, then failed to pay it. Which misled a lot of people, including the actual beneficiary - Taeja. Personal attacks? What? That's just how the shit works. Unless you confirm this, or a bet, or whatever it's not "live." That's how things are done. Look at all the bets done over at Liquidpoker. There's offer, there's the person who accepts the offer, and then there is confirmation by the original bettor. And fuck me, same thing with any contractual obligation. It needs two parties to enter an agreement. Are you serious? Bets are total different because you are wagering something so you need acceptance from both sides. Companies like Google put out 'bounties' for people finding bugs/exploit in their software. There is no need to 'accept'. You just report the bug when you find it and you get paid/reward. And why bring in contractual obligation, no one is saying Naniwa legally has to pay Taeja. It is just bad form... Companies be companies, people be people. This is more akin to betting 500 against nothing than it is to holding a sweepstakes. Not to mention that Naniwa was paying for Revival elimination, google's not gonna pay someone for "almost" fixing the bug either will they now. You really want to argue this? Google is not paying someone to FIX the bug. They are paying someone to show them an exploit. That person gets paid regardless of whether Google can fix the bug or not. Eventhough fixing the bug is Google's FINAL goal, the person still gets paid for helping to TRY to reach the final goal. Let's say you offer a tutor to help you study for a Math exam. Obviously, the final goal is to pass or do well in the exam. But unless you state your condition (getting an A) at the beginning, you will have to paid the tutor regardless of the outcome of the exam,no?
what?
the point isnt what in particular google wants. The point is that they don't pay for someone not doing what they want.
|
On November 01 2013 18:58 1Dhalism wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 18:55 vthree wrote:On November 01 2013 18:51 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 18:43 vthree wrote:On November 01 2013 18:30 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 17:34 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 17:23 1Dhalism wrote:On November 01 2013 16:59 Ghanburighan wrote:On November 01 2013 15:44 lystier wrote:
I'm wondering if naniwa will pay his bounty to taeja cuz he did beat revival lol Nope, he already broke that promise on twitter. Apparently "beating a player" needs to be construed as "beating a player only if that player does not make it to Blizzcon." Also known as, I'm not guaranteed 5k, so I don't want to pay anything to anyone. pretty obvious that was what he meant. If you thought otherwise, and especially if you didnt reach out to accept and clarify his proposition, you only have yourself to blame. While I appreciate the personal attack /s, I don't see how it's obvious that his words mean something entirely different: He said in his tweet: "offering 500$ bounty to whoever wins vs revival". That's pretty unequivocal. It was also the interpretation Taeja had, as he contacted Naniwa over twitter after winning against Revival. In the end, Naniwa made the bounty a thing that people were talking about, then failed to pay it. Which misled a lot of people, including the actual beneficiary - Taeja. Personal attacks? What? That's just how the shit works. Unless you confirm this, or a bet, or whatever it's not "live." That's how things are done. Look at all the bets done over at Liquidpoker. There's offer, there's the person who accepts the offer, and then there is confirmation by the original bettor. And fuck me, same thing with any contractual obligation. It needs two parties to enter an agreement. Are you serious? Bets are total different because you are wagering something so you need acceptance from both sides. Companies like Google put out 'bounties' for people finding bugs/exploit in their software. There is no need to 'accept'. You just report the bug when you find it and you get paid/reward. And why bring in contractual obligation, no one is saying Naniwa legally has to pay Taeja. It is just bad form... Companies be companies, people be people. This is more akin to betting 500 against nothing than it is to holding a sweepstakes. Not to mention that Naniwa was paying for Revival elimination, google's not gonna pay someone for "almost" fixing the bug either will they now. You really want to argue this? Google is not paying someone to FIX the bug. They are paying someone to show them an exploit. That person gets paid regardless of whether Google can fix the bug or not. Eventhough fixing the bug is Google's FINAL goal, the person still gets paid for helping to TRY to reach the final goal. Let's say you offer a tutor to help you study for a Math exam. Obviously, the final goal is to pass or do well in the exam. But unless you state your condition (getting an A) at the beginning, you will have to paid the tutor regardless of the outcome of the exam,no? what? the point isnt what in particular google wants. The point is that they don't pay for someone not doing what they want.
I honestly don't see how you're arguing this point. If google says "We'll pay you if you find a bug," then anyone that does find a bug will get paid. Even if the bug cannot be fixed, google still pays out. The point is, if you say "A", you cannot go around saying "A only if B as well". That's being dishonest.
|
i can't see both players doing well against soulkey so yea, gogo soulkey lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
