Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 10 Vote(s) - 4.3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Winter World Cup WINNER - poweewee (Philippines)
01-31-2013, 05:30 PM
Post: #261
RE: 2013 Winter World Cup - QUALIFIERS
can thayaplaya start a game against me please? am i right if that they dont start the game by the qualifier deadline, that they forfeit?

[Image: sig.png]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-31-2013, 05:36 PM
Post: #262
RE: 2013 Winter World Cup - QUALIFIERS
(01-31-2013 03:46 PM)awpertunity Wrote:  
(01-31-2013 02:14 PM)Hifimatlock Wrote:  Hi awpertunity,

My two cents is that only one person should advance. The rules were clearly stated at the beginning, and now that a few super titans have lost, they want to change the rules for a second chance. That's not quite fair.

Yeah I could've used your input earlier! Haha, I've already changed it now too and will be just as troublesome to change it back. I agree though I wish it was brought up earlier.
It is clearly unacceptable to change rules of round when the round is going on. There must be one player from each group as supposed before. And there should be no troubles as all players knew this rule on start of round.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-31-2013, 06:24 PM
Post: #263
RE: 2013 Winter World Cup - QUALIFIERS
(01-31-2013 02:14 PM)Hifimatlock Wrote:  Hi awpertunity,

My two cents is that only one person should advance. The rules were clearly stated at the beginning, and now that a few super titans have lost, they want to change the rules for a second chance. That's not quite fair.

Hi hifimatlock, has Carlesba started game with you yet? I sent two reminders but have not heard anything back, just want to check to see if you started, thanks
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-31-2013, 06:58 PM
Post: #264
RE: 2013 Winter World Cup - QUALIFIERS
(01-31-2013 05:36 PM)demonaz123 Wrote:  
(01-31-2013 03:46 PM)awpertunity Wrote:  
(01-31-2013 02:14 PM)Hifimatlock Wrote:  Hi awpertunity,

My two cents is that only one person should advance. The rules were clearly stated at the beginning, and now that a few super titans have lost, they want to change the rules for a second chance. That's not quite fair.

Yeah I could've used your input earlier! Haha, I've already changed it now too and will be just as troublesome to change it back. I agree though I wish it was brought up earlier.
It is clearly unacceptable to change rules of round when the round is going on. There must be one player from each group as supposed before. And there should be no troubles as all players knew this rule on start of round.

We might need to put this to a vote. I am actually on the side of only top player advancing as originally planned because of the reason stated here. If people had voiced their concern about only 1 person advancing, it really should've come before the tournament started, not after so many games have already been played...
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-31-2013, 07:11 PM
Post: #265
RE: 2013 Winter World Cup - QUALIFIERS
You know what, more I think about it the more I am inclined to go back to the original rule-set. If people had issues with only the top player advancing, this should have been voiced earlier as it has clearly been stated in the rules since the beginning of the tournament.

Otherwise there are going to just be "too many chefs", and I can't put every single parameter of the tournament up to a vote, especially with this many people and prizes involved. I am consulting Adam on the issue now, but once a decision is made it will not be revisited.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-31-2013, 09:42 PM
Post: #266
RE: 2013 Winter World Cup - QUALIFIERS
(01-31-2013 03:46 PM)awpertunity Wrote:  
(01-31-2013 02:14 PM)Hifimatlock Wrote:  Hi awpertunity,

My two cents is that only one person should advance. The rules were clearly stated at the beginning, and now that a few super titans have lost, they want to change the rules for a second chance. That's not quite fair.

Yeah I could've used your input earlier! Haha, I've already changed it now too and will be just as troublesome to change it back. I agree though I wish it was brought up earlier.

Does it hurt if 2 advance instead of 1?
And what indicates players potential more precisely?
How about Super Titan smashing everyone in his/her group and a 2nd place ambitious Gifted guy who is just soaked down the drain on his first attempt only because he didn't managed to win single TOP200 match?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-31-2013, 09:55 PM (This post was last modified: 01-31-2013 09:58 PM by Harti.)
Post: #267
RE: 2013 Winter World Cup - QUALIFIERS
(01-31-2013 02:14 PM)Hifimatlock Wrote:  Hi awpertunity,

My two cents is that only one person should advance. The rules were clearly stated at the beginning, and now that a few super titans have lost, they want to change the rules for a second chance. That's not quite fair.
Says probably the one who's beat the Super-Titan in his group? You're funny! Angel



@awpertunity:
That's fair enough I guess, I know I shouldn't have brought the topic up in the first place, or at least should've done so via PM to avoid the trolls emerging.
For my liking the initial ruleset is okay anyway, it's just a bummer that other great players from the groups cannot proceed. I personally would have liked to see some e.g. Master league underdog runner-up completely annihilate his/her group for a surprise.

I am really torn between. On the one hand I simply do not care (no, I do not even care about whether or not I proceed in this tourney, I'm unlikely to make it to the knockout stage whatever the ruleset is because I do not care enough to count wits and things) and on the other I'd like it somehow.
But ever since I noticed that my advancement may or may not be on stake (and DaWizerd attacked me), I don't feel it's a good thing for me to furtherly discuss this.

jesusfuentesh Wrote:  Harti is like the silent lion. He never says any word, but when so, he was just waiting for his victim haha

[Image: sig.png]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-31-2013, 09:57 PM
Post: #268
RE: 2013 Winter World Cup - QUALIFIERS
(01-31-2013 05:07 PM)Mr.Banger Wrote:  
(01-31-2013 03:03 PM)Da Wizerd Wrote:  Nothing new here, "oh, I didn't look, so I didn't know, so fix it please". Personal accountability is out of style.

Lolwut?

"I didn't read the rules, but now that its started I don't like the rules, so can you change them to suit me?"

Is that clearer?

Da Wizerd - Super-Titan
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-31-2013, 10:40 PM
Post: #269
RE: 2013 Winter World Cup - QUALIFIERS
Has anyone in Group 5 gotten a request from Thayaplaya? He/she still hasn't started a game with me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2013, 01:47 AM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2013 02:07 AM by GreatGonzales.)
Post: #270
RE: 2013 Winter World Cup - QUALIFIERS
(01-31-2013 07:11 PM)awpertunity Wrote:  You know what, more I think about it the more I am inclined to go back to the original rule-set. If people had issues with only the top player advancing, this should have been voiced earlier as it has clearly been stated in the rules since the beginning of the tournament.

Otherwise there are going to just be "too many chefs", and I can't put every single parameter of the tournament up to a vote, especially with this many people and prizes involved. I am consulting Adam on the issue now, but once a decision is made it will not be revisited.

Hmm, I really wasn't expecting any sort of backlash to the rule change.

Speaking as someone who will likely win their pool, I am in favor of changing the rules. I am for the maximally fair, inclusive, and efficiently run tournament possible, and I think that tournament would use the rules described under option 3. It's totally a fair point that we - I - should have complained about the rules from the outset. In my case, I guess I was assuming that this tournament would follow more closely in the footsteps of the first World Cup, so I didn't bother to check the rules. Also, am I correct that the rules changed a number of times, as the tournament size increased?

However. If we are not going to change the rules (for the better, I argue), I would like to be made aware of the harm caused by this rule change. It's one thing to discuss changing matches from being best of 1 to, for example, best of 3. That would be an unreasonable rule change. However, all that's being discussed is the level of graduation from the first round of the tournament to the next, something that should not affect play - that is, in my estimation at least. Tournament format is essentially staying the same; we are (essentially) only proposing to change the tournament size. Can someone explain to me why this would negatively impact tournament play? Perhaps a player who sees that the ST in his pool has won all his matches, so he throws the remaining matches and as a result someone else claims the number 2 spot rather than him? This is only scenario I can think of, and it seems unlikely. What is the harm in including more people in the competition?

Again, I'm surprised at the backlash from some. Really? We have 232 players in this tournament; to whittle that number down to just 32 after 1 round of pools is EXTREMELY harsh. Doing so not only excludes some Super Titans from competition, but perhaps more importantly it excludes the excellent players who were skilled but not skilled enough to beat poweewee. For such players, what is their testament in the tournament results? They are relegated to forgettable pool results, and that's not very fun or fair. It's as though we are saying: "Oh, you want to compete in this tournament? Cool, we'll place you with one of the best players in the world, and if you can't beat him you don't get to go to the fun part of the tournament. Sucks to be you."

That being said, it's your show awpertunity.

It'll be GG when you're up against GG of GG.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread:
9 Guest(s)

Return to TopReturn to Content