|
From what I understand some of the issue is that these players have barcodes and their actual named account. In general the barcode gets more play. And the rule states (or implies?) it needs to be on the main account. So if QXC (this is only an example) has 120 wins on his named account but 300 wins on his barcode they, currently, would not sum those.
|
Doesn't seem like it's nasl fault at all. The problem is that the wcs site state something different from the handbook (cumulative or not) but either way not managing 200 wins last seasons is pretty bad for a pro gamer and it was clearly stated in the handbook which people like me that didn't even plan to participate knew said you had to have 200 wins. And if not they can still play in the am only qualifiers. Seems pretty shitty they delayed the tournament now but I guess that's also bc the official wcs information was inconsistant. Just feel sad for the players who already get 200 wins if they don't qualify instead of someone that didn't even ladder.
|
On January 07 2014 09:42 Neemi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 09:39 Zealously wrote:On January 07 2014 09:38 mikumegurine wrote:
So 2013 Season 3, need 200 wins or 2014 Season 1 need 200 wins right?
No, it's apparently cumulative. This season and the last. The WCS site is a little ambiguous but what we're hearing right now is that it covers both. ... which makes it even more sad that only so few people qualified for this.
Today it wasn't cumulative, the admin only looked at last season or this season, not both together. It's just this way from now on I think, the rules weren't clear enough. God this is getting confusing, gonna sleep now.
|
On January 07 2014 09:45 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 09:42 Neemi wrote:On January 07 2014 09:39 Zealously wrote:On January 07 2014 09:38 mikumegurine wrote:
So 2013 Season 3, need 200 wins or 2014 Season 1 need 200 wins right?
No, it's apparently cumulative. This season and the last. The WCS site is a little ambiguous but what we're hearing right now is that it covers both. ... which makes it even more sad that only so few people qualified for this. Today it wasn't cumulative, the admin only looked at last season or this season, not both together. It's just this way from now on I think, the rules weren't clear enough. God this is getting confusing, gonna sleep now.
Can I bring the nitpicking meta forward and state that someone with 201 wins (or more) might not necessarily be someone "with 200 wins"? 
|
So if something is important, and not very clear.. You ask the source for confimation/answers right? Blizz/NASL would be a good place to start (next to team-liquid).
Twitter, facebook, e-mail, phone, skype...
I dunno, but for every pro player that seems to promote their own urls on all these platforms, they sure seem reluctant to use it for its designed functionality instead of a marketing tool.
|
On January 07 2014 09:42 Tenks wrote:
From what I understand some of the issue is that these players have barcodes and their actual named account. In general the barcode gets more play. And the rule states (or implies?) it needs to be on the main account. So if QXC (this is only an example) has 120 wins on his named account but 300 wins on his barcode they, currently, would not sum those.
That is no clear in the rule book, but I am going to bet they want it on one account to avoid problems and general cheating. This is a question a progamer should have asked Blizzard when the handbook was released, rather than a fan asking now.
|
On January 07 2014 09:42 Tenks wrote:
From what I understand some of the issue is that these players have barcodes and their actual named account. In general the barcode gets more play. And the rule states (or implies?) it needs to be on the main account. So if QXC (this is only an example) has 120 wins on his named account but 300 wins on his barcode they, currently, would not sum those.
it's okay they ended up making an exception for qxc http://i.imgur.com/LjwgBgP.png
so who knows maybe when they release the information they will let you use as many accounts as you want as long as you have 200 wins combined between current/previous season :3
|
On January 07 2014 09:46 Loxley wrote:
So if something is important, and not very clear.. You ask the source for confimation/answers right?
Twitter, facebook, e-mail, phone, skype...
I dunno, but for every pro player that seems to promote their own urls on all these platforms, they sure seem reluctant to use it for its designed functionality instead of a marketing tool.
They just need twitter. Kim Phan responds to lots of stuff and is super helpful. The just need to break out of their nerd shell and ask the question. She is following a good chunk of them on twitter, so they could just send her a direct message with questions if they don't want us all to see.
|
On January 07 2014 09:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 09:42 Tenks wrote:
From what I understand some of the issue is that these players have barcodes and their actual named account. In general the barcode gets more play. And the rule states (or implies?) it needs to be on the main account. So if QXC (this is only an example) has 120 wins on his named account but 300 wins on his barcode they, currently, would not sum those. That is no clear in the rule book, but I am going to bet they want it on one account to avoid problems and general cheating. This is a question a progamer should have asked Blizzard when the handbook was released, rather than a fan asking now.
No doubt it's an issue if they allow barcode accounts to sum into the total. What is to stop someone from just phoning a friend to log onto their bar code real quick and say that it is him as well? It is a can of worms that should be stopped now, imo.
|
On January 07 2014 09:51 Tenks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 09:46 Plansix wrote:On January 07 2014 09:42 Tenks wrote:
From what I understand some of the issue is that these players have barcodes and their actual named account. In general the barcode gets more play. And the rule states (or implies?) it needs to be on the main account. So if QXC (this is only an example) has 120 wins on his named account but 300 wins on his barcode they, currently, would not sum those. That is no clear in the rule book, but I am going to bet they want it on one account to avoid problems and general cheating. This is a question a progamer should have asked Blizzard when the handbook was released, rather than a fan asking now. No doubt it's an issue if they allow barcode accounts to sum into the total. What is to stop someone from just phoning a friend to log onto their bar code real quick and say that it is him as well? It is a can of worms that should be stopped now, imo.
Well, at least this will not be a problem next time
|
On January 07 2014 10:02 Tamagoshi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 09:51 Tenks wrote:On January 07 2014 09:46 Plansix wrote:On January 07 2014 09:42 Tenks wrote:
From what I understand some of the issue is that these players have barcodes and their actual named account. In general the barcode gets more play. And the rule states (or implies?) it needs to be on the main account. So if QXC (this is only an example) has 120 wins on his named account but 300 wins on his barcode they, currently, would not sum those. That is no clear in the rule book, but I am going to bet they want it on one account to avoid problems and general cheating. This is a question a progamer should have asked Blizzard when the handbook was released, rather than a fan asking now. No doubt it's an issue if they allow barcode accounts to sum into the total. What is to stop someone from just phoning a friend to log onto their bar code real quick and say that it is him as well? It is a can of worms that should be stopped now, imo. Well, at least this will not be a problem next time https://twitter.com/kimaphan/status/420351058628448256
My god, Shew used twitter to contact Blizzard about a rule he was unclear about. Such passion.
|
It makes some sense to add the victories of the current and previous seasons for the same account now that wcs season match with the ladder season because get 200 wins in 1 week is pretty hard. But use wins from smurf accounts doesnt.
|
United States23455 Posts
On January 07 2014 09:46 SinCitta wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 09:45 Musicus wrote:On January 07 2014 09:42 Neemi wrote:On January 07 2014 09:39 Zealously wrote:On January 07 2014 09:38 mikumegurine wrote:
So 2013 Season 3, need 200 wins or 2014 Season 1 need 200 wins right?
No, it's apparently cumulative. This season and the last. The WCS site is a little ambiguous but what we're hearing right now is that it covers both. ... which makes it even more sad that only so few people qualified for this. Today it wasn't cumulative, the admin only looked at last season or this season, not both together. It's just this way from now on I think, the rules weren't clear enough. God this is getting confusing, gonna sleep now. Can I bring the nitpicking meta forward and state that someone with 201 wins (or more) might not necessarily be someone "with 200 wins"?
It's true. They didn't specify "200 wins or more"
|
On January 07 2014 10:28 Darkhoarse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 09:46 SinCitta wrote:On January 07 2014 09:45 Musicus wrote:On January 07 2014 09:42 Neemi wrote:On January 07 2014 09:39 Zealously wrote:On January 07 2014 09:38 mikumegurine wrote:
So 2013 Season 3, need 200 wins or 2014 Season 1 need 200 wins right?
No, it's apparently cumulative. This season and the last. The WCS site is a little ambiguous but what we're hearing right now is that it covers both. ... which makes it even more sad that only so few people qualified for this. Today it wasn't cumulative, the admin only looked at last season or this season, not both together. It's just this way from now on I think, the rules weren't clear enough. God this is getting confusing, gonna sleep now. Can I bring the nitpicking meta forward and state that someone with 201 wins (or more) might not necessarily be someone "with 200 wins"? It's true. They didn't specify "200 wins or more"
New meta, Blackjackcraft.
|
On January 07 2014 10:38 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 10:28 Darkhoarse wrote:On January 07 2014 09:46 SinCitta wrote:On January 07 2014 09:45 Musicus wrote:On January 07 2014 09:42 Neemi wrote:On January 07 2014 09:39 Zealously wrote:On January 07 2014 09:38 mikumegurine wrote:
So 2013 Season 3, need 200 wins or 2014 Season 1 need 200 wins right?
No, it's apparently cumulative. This season and the last. The WCS site is a little ambiguous but what we're hearing right now is that it covers both. ... which makes it even more sad that only so few people qualified for this. Today it wasn't cumulative, the admin only looked at last season or this season, not both together. It's just this way from now on I think, the rules weren't clear enough. God this is getting confusing, gonna sleep now. Can I bring the nitpicking meta forward and state that someone with 201 wins (or more) might not necessarily be someone "with 200 wins"? It's true. They didn't specify "200 wins or more" New meta, Blackjackcraft.
the 200th win game, must also have exactly 200 APM, no more no less
|
United States97276 Posts
On January 07 2014 10:46 mikumegurine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 10:38 Squat wrote:On January 07 2014 10:28 Darkhoarse wrote:On January 07 2014 09:46 SinCitta wrote:On January 07 2014 09:45 Musicus wrote:On January 07 2014 09:42 Neemi wrote:On January 07 2014 09:39 Zealously wrote:On January 07 2014 09:38 mikumegurine wrote:
So 2013 Season 3, need 200 wins or 2014 Season 1 need 200 wins right?
No, it's apparently cumulative. This season and the last. The WCS site is a little ambiguous but what we're hearing right now is that it covers both. ... which makes it even more sad that only so few people qualified for this. Today it wasn't cumulative, the admin only looked at last season or this season, not both together. It's just this way from now on I think, the rules weren't clear enough. God this is getting confusing, gonna sleep now. Can I bring the nitpicking meta forward and state that someone with 201 wins (or more) might not necessarily be someone "with 200 wins"? It's true. They didn't specify "200 wins or more" New meta, Blackjackcraft. the 200th win game, must also have exactly 200 APM, no more no less
Average unspent resources must be 200 and time spend supply blocked will either be set at 2:00 or 200 seconds
|
On January 07 2014 10:47 Shellshock wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 10:46 mikumegurine wrote:On January 07 2014 10:38 Squat wrote:On January 07 2014 10:28 Darkhoarse wrote:On January 07 2014 09:46 SinCitta wrote:On January 07 2014 09:45 Musicus wrote:On January 07 2014 09:42 Neemi wrote:On January 07 2014 09:39 Zealously wrote:On January 07 2014 09:38 mikumegurine wrote:
So 2013 Season 3, need 200 wins or 2014 Season 1 need 200 wins right?
No, it's apparently cumulative. This season and the last. The WCS site is a little ambiguous but what we're hearing right now is that it covers both. ... which makes it even more sad that only so few people qualified for this. Today it wasn't cumulative, the admin only looked at last season or this season, not both together. It's just this way from now on I think, the rules weren't clear enough. God this is getting confusing, gonna sleep now. Can I bring the nitpicking meta forward and state that someone with 201 wins (or more) might not necessarily be someone "with 200 wins"? It's true. They didn't specify "200 wins or more" New meta, Blackjackcraft. the 200th win game, must also have exactly 200 APM, no more no less Average unspent resources must be 200 and time spend supply blocked will either be set at 2:00 or 200 seconds
doing those 2 at the same time should be quite hilarious 
|
On January 07 2014 10:47 Shellshock wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 10:46 mikumegurine wrote:On January 07 2014 10:38 Squat wrote:On January 07 2014 10:28 Darkhoarse wrote:On January 07 2014 09:46 SinCitta wrote:On January 07 2014 09:45 Musicus wrote:On January 07 2014 09:42 Neemi wrote:On January 07 2014 09:39 Zealously wrote:On January 07 2014 09:38 mikumegurine wrote:
So 2013 Season 3, need 200 wins or 2014 Season 1 need 200 wins right?
No, it's apparently cumulative. This season and the last. The WCS site is a little ambiguous but what we're hearing right now is that it covers both. ... which makes it even more sad that only so few people qualified for this. Today it wasn't cumulative, the admin only looked at last season or this season, not both together. It's just this way from now on I think, the rules weren't clear enough. God this is getting confusing, gonna sleep now. Can I bring the nitpicking meta forward and state that someone with 201 wins (or more) might not necessarily be someone "with 200 wins"? It's true. They didn't specify "200 wins or more" New meta, Blackjackcraft. the 200th win game, must also have exactly 200 APM, no more no less Average unspent resources must be 200 and time spend supply blocked will either be set at 2:00 or 200 seconds
the winning player must exit the game at exactly the 20:00 mark or the 2:00:00 mark. (or the 20:00:00 mark if we get another firecake v mana type game)
|
Well if it's the winning player, he could just win and then sit in the game until the proscribed time. Winning at 2:00:14 would kind of suck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
