|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
The Process of Creating the Greatest of All Time List:
After reading most of the reactions, I thought I’d go into more detail on the step-by-step process of creating the lst. It’s actually pretty simple.
The first step was to take out criteria that I considered irrelevant in the making of the lists. Those criteria were:
Money won
Online Tournaments/Qualifiers
The reason is actually pretty simple. Lets say we take the argument that making the most money means therefore you had the most skill. In that case by that logic, you’d have to say Newbee are the greatest Dota2 players of all time (despite that they probably even weren’t the best Dota2 players of 2014). More relevantly, you’d have to tier every tournament solely based on prize earnings. Meaning something like Shoucraft NA run by TB is almost as important or more important than any MLG victory won in 2011. The same weekend MMA won MLG Columbus, Lyn won a Chinese SC2 tournament with 4 times the prize pool. Lyn was not 4 times the player MMA was at that moment. Fruitdealer’s GSL victory is more important than Life’s GSL victory in 2015. All money earning measures is how much money you earned. It’s a cool stat, but doesn’t particularly reflect on the skill of a tournament.
Secondly, online tournaments and qualifiers were discounted. ESL Korean qualifiers have a harder competitive list than WCS NA and WCS EU combined. But there is no prestige, no lan pressure, and the difference in reward between winning that qualifier and winning a tournament is massive. No one remembers who won what qualifier to make it into ESL in 2012, but everyone remembers Naniwa winning MLG in 2011 despite there being 0 Koreans in attendance (Do Select and Moonan even count?)
The second step was to quantify concepts to myself. Most importantly the difference between 1st and 2nd, and preparation formats vs non-prep formats.
The difference of course is the prestige, the difficulty, the reward, the legacy, the history. But it is also the difference of exactly one series. How many second places do you need in order to make it equivalent to a first? Some people say you could have an infinite amount. In that case You’d have to put Seed/Sniper/Jjakji over soO as an all time great. And I hope that looks as ludicrous to you as it does to me. Basically I settled this by making a mental note of first places and measuring the raods taken to the finals. For instance IEM Cologne 2014.
In terms of pure difficulty and skill I rate Polt’s runner-up of higher quality than HerO winning the exact same tournament. In the blink meta, it made it so only 3 Terrans became worth a damn in TvP: Maru, Taeja and Polt. HerO beat ForGG twice, Innovation, Jaedong and Polt. ForGG was already bad at TvP before that meta hit. Innovation got kicked out of the GSL because Zest used the blink all-ins to kick him out. Jaedong was good, but wasn’t nearly as impressive as he was in 2013. Polt on the other hand beat Mana, Stardust, Classic, Rain and then lost to HerO. Mana was pretty bad at PvT and couldn’t abuse the meta. Stardust was really good and was top 8 in WCS EU. Classic was cracking near Top 5 Protoss players of his race and would win the GSL a few months later. Rain was a Top 5 player of his race (arguably Top 2) and would be in the semi-finals of GSL in a month. HerO won in a favorable meta against Terran players weak against Blink All-ins, barely won against Jaedong, and then beat Polt. In his run I’d argue he only had two impressive performancs against Jaedong and Polt. Polt played in a god awful meta for Terran against one of the better Protoss’ of Europe in Stardust, beat a future GSL Champ, then beata Top 5- Top 2 Protoss before losing to HerO.
Basically for me it was all about context, the runs, the metas, who they played, how the played and the degrees therewithin.
Now preparation vs non-preparation. Basically I believe that preparation adds a large amount of complexity to any matchup. If given time, a player can devise and create a strategy that can maximize their chances of beating anyone, no matter how superior the other player is. It adds pressure and requires more skill and composure and hard work to the equation. Marathon tournaments have a completely different set of problems though. Foreign lans are much more susceptible to technical issues. Then you have to deal with jet lag, travel issues, being in a foreign country, fighting against a multitude of playstyles, you have to have endurance and you have to think of the fly. While I do respect the preparation format more, it is pretty ludicrious to say any non=preparation format is worse solely because of the format.
In the end, prep vs non-prep only mattered when compettiion at a foreign event was similar to a GSL (Tournaments like IPL 5, MLG Fall, IEM Toronto, IEM Cologne all spring to mind). In those cases, I added it into the back of my mind as a factor among many to consider.
Now I can get to the actual ranking part. First I thought up of every player I considered to be in the greatest of all time from 2010 to now. Then I listed all of their Top 4 placings at every Premier Event. Then I tiered each event they were at based on the competition. So then whats’ the difference between something like MarineKing’s MLG wins and Leenock’s MLG win? Why are they tiered differently. I basically went through the entire player list. I then wrote down how good they were for their respective race and only counted players that were either in the Top 10 or Top 5 of their race Then I cut everyone else out unless a player had an extremely hot run and played above their level (Sjow, Haypro, Patience all fit this example). I then took that list and theory crafted exactly how many players I’d need to add in order to say every one of the best players in the world at this very moment are here right now. Then I wrote down the paths of every single Top 4 run they did and only included players in my list. I then made sure to include players if a player was only a matchup god (Ryung in TvT is the first example here). So now I have a list of the greatest players and their achievements based on a 4 tier system on the competition that played there.
So for instance let’s take Parting’s WCS 2012 victory and measure it against MKP’s MLG Spring Championship top 3 placing. Parting’s WCS 2012 was a tier 3 tournament. It had basically all top 5 Protosses, 1 of the top 5 Zergs (Roro), a top 10 Zerg (Stephano) a middling Zerg in Curious and a bunch of strong foreign players that could on a very good day crack a top 10 performance of their race maybe (Grubby, Lucifron, Sen, Vortix, Scarlet). I’d need to add maybe 7 Koreans to make this a tier 1 event.
Now lets look at MLG Spring Championship. This was mid 2012, so MC, Alicia and Oz were all either top 5 or top 10 Protoss (this was during Alica’s run of second places, Oz coming off ro8 GSL, MC being MC). Then you had MKP, Polt, MMA, Thorzain, aLive. 2 of the Top 5 Terrans in MKP and Polt. MMA, Thorzain and aLive were around top 10. (MMA had come off Iron Squid and this was right as he fell. Thorzain DH Stockholm, aLive was falling from his top 2 Terran performance in early 2012, but was still in the upper echelon). Then you had 5 Zergs: DRG, Stephano, Violet, Symbol, Leenock. The only Zerg missing was Nestea (life had yet to exist). To knock this up to a tier one then you needed more Terrans (Byun, Mvp, Taeja) and at least 1 more of the Protosses (Naniwa, Genius or Seed).
Now look at their paths. Using my grading scale Parting only beat 4 notable opponents: Scarlett, Suppy (Who had a peak performance here), Sen and Creator. MKP to get 3rd beat: Symbol, Stephano, Thorzain, loss to DRG, loss to Alicia. If you really stretch here you could say Parting beat a top 10 Zerg, two foreigners in Suppy and Sen who played around top 10 level and Creator, Top 3 P. MKP beat a 2 Top 5 Zergs and then a top 10 Terran, and other multiple equivalent players to Sen/Suppy in Dream/Grubby/Golden. In terms of content you could make a case here that Marineking’s top 3 run was harder than Parting’s victory at WCS.
For me context was everything.
So basically after doing all of that I had a list of about 20 or so. I then measured their years of consistency. Let’s take Maru as an example. 3.5 years non-relevant. OSL to now he was a Top 3 Terran. During that Top 3 Terran era, he was top 1 for the first half of 2014 and in my eyes the best Terran of 2015 so far. I did this for every player.
I then annotated that by writing down their years as compared to the metas they played in. For instance, winning in a crapsack age as the blink era for Terran was worth more than winning in a golden age for Zerg in the bl/infestor era.
Then I judged Innovation and refinement. What builds/styles did a player innovate (in the sense that he was the first to do a build consistently, players credited that player with the build and/or players copied him after he had done it - like Stephano and the 3 hatch) Then there was refinement. Nestea created and refined Muta ling/bling, but DRG took that refinement a step further than that. Generally I had to measure the degrees of refinement and innovation. Let’s take for example Life. He created a strong counter-attack style that was extremely refined and was uncopyable for 2012. While never replicated perfectly, it was then used by multiple players from 2013 onwards (most notably Curious, Leenock, Jaedong, Soulkey and Pet). He got maximum points possible in refinement and a decent amount of points in innovation. Stephano got maximum points in both.
Then you had to measure adversity, which I touched upon. Basically this comes down to metas, how many players of your race could you learn from during your time (For instance Nestea was the only zerg worth a damn in 2011 until DRG/Leenock rose up), outside influences (MMA’s team situation) or injuries.
Then I measured things like relative increased skill overtime, how dropout/retirements may have affected the overall skill gap, and then measured the differential between TOp 1 and Top 5 of each race. For instance in the latter half of 2012, Top 3 Protoss were: Parting, Creator, Rain. It then went on a pretty decent gap between them and 4th pce of P. In 2013 It went Soulkey, Jaedong and then a humungous gap between them and 3rd best Zerg. 2014, it went soO and then a gap so massive it was only comparable to Nestea’s 2011 era, until you got to the second best Zerg.
Then I added in X factors for each player: Clutch, composure, versatility, play style, series planning.
Now take every factor I measured up and then grade two players head-to-head on every level (measured and balanced runs, prestige, achievements, time of consistency, peak consistency, innovation, refinement, adversity and x factors) and grade them. That’s basically what I did for every player that could have made the list of the Greatest of All Time. If you go through the entire thing, you could probably deduce the rest of my Top 10. Simple right?
 
|
Sounds it 
How long did this process take you?
|
wow. more detailed than I thought it would. I'd ask you questions but I'm afraid you've aleready answered them and I'm just failing at reading comprehension
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
About 20 hours of research. I basically had to chart a line of every player's careers (and matchups) to know exactly how strong a run was. Then the infinite comparing, then I went around and asked ppl who may have had better perspective on certain players. This would have taken a lot longer if I hadn't been studying SC2 for years already.
|
That's mightily impressive. And yeah if I were to try and do the same it would take me at least triple that time (and likely a lot longer if I started watching replays. haha). I only play intermittently but love watching the GSL so I totally dig all the articles you guys produce. Keen as for parts 2&3!
|
If I were a girl, this kind of detail would make me moist.
Spreadsheets upon spreadsheets
|
uh congrats on 31115 posts blog?
no seriously thank you for writing it all out it makes things extremely clear and I appreciate it. Using this we prob could figure out the exact list but that would take too much effort
|
"pretty simple"
Bloody hell.
|
Magnificent. That's such a good explanation that I'll even wait until the whole list is published before disagreeing further .
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
it is in our best interest if you keep disagreeing with everything ever
|
United States97276 Posts
is stephano in the top 10?
|
no mention of squirtle; squirtle and mc were leagues ahead of all the other toss when it was considered the worst race they were winning everything. No mention of bomber either, the terran winning stuff besides mvp when terrans were struggling against the super zergs
|
Which database did you use to remember all this though? TLPD or Aligulac??? :-D
(Of course you spent hours upon hours on Liquipedia, as do we all)
|
The fact alone that you judge people based on "the meta", which is mostly a thing that exists only in the minds of TL posters and whiny foreigners makes your ranking irrelevant. It's almost sad how much work and passion you have invested into it only to become only an extremely sophisticated version of "I like those players the most". Your "tiering" process has the same flaw as almost everything ever done on TL - it includes players who are relevant only because of their success outside Korea and taking them into account increases the relevance of the foreign tourneys in a circular argument.
But one should not be just negative. I am not willing to put in 20 hours, so the example will not be as refined, but let's see just the rough outlines how would I go about such list in simple bullet points:
- open the list of 1st/2nd places in GSL (excludng "special tournaments" because they are weird), OSL, SSL
- identify players that are on this list at least twice. These are people that show a minimal required level of consistence in the only tournaments that actually matter:
Nestea, MC, Mvp, Life, Innovation, soO, Rain, Maru, MKP,DRG
- sigh with a slight relief that the list has 10 names so can be used without pulling other names from ass
- sigh with a slight disgust that I have crafted the criteria so stupidly that MKP is on the list and Parting isn't
- stare into the liquipedia pages endlessly to find more people that would push MKP and DRG out from top 10
- contemplate including 2014 "GSL global champs" to gain Parting but have to endure including Zest and lose all credibility
- contemplate how everyone is so crazy about sOs who did not reach the finals even once, appreciate that Stuchiu put him 16th
- be happy that Taeja is not on the list, even though the method was chosen primarily with this goal in mind
- still contemplate how badly I want Parting to be on the list, why doesn't the greedy bastard win a GSL instead of collecting easy money around the world?
Now it is getting hard and random:
- assign points for the placements
- 2 points 1st place
- 1 point 2nd place
- 1 point for any extra year your greatness spans (have a point from 2014? get a point if you have a point from 2012, get four if you were so good in 2010) - it is supposed to be of all times, right? (i call this "the lifeline ")
Nestea 7
MC 7
Mvp 8 (yay!)
Life 7
Innovation 4
soO 5
Rain 4
Maru 6
MKP 3
DRG 3
- be honestly surprised that the out-of-the-ass point system at least puts MKP and DRG last and relieved that it indeed puts Mvp first (after being a little scared by the discovery that he has only two different years)
- see the need to decide tie-breakers - as it is "all times", tie-breakers are decided by length between points (guess why)
- assemble the final list in the correct order:
Mvp
Life
Mc
Nestea
Maru
soO
Innovation
Rain
Parting
DRG
|
Austria24417 Posts
No ranking is irrelevant. Calling a subjective ranking irrelevant makes your post irrelevant.
|
On April 14 2015 17:36 opisska wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The fact alone that you judge people based on "the meta", which is mostly a thing that exists only in the minds of TL posters and whiny foreigners makes your ranking irrelevant. It's almost sad how much work and passion you have invested into it only to become only an extremely sophisticated version of "I like those players the most". Your "tiering" process has the same flaw as almost everything ever done on TL - it includes players who are relevant only because of their success outside Korea and taking them into account increases the relevance of the foreign tourneys in a circular argument.
But one should not be just negative. I am not willing to put in 20 hours, so the example will not be as refined, but let's see just the rough outlines how would I go about such list in simple bullet points:
- open the list of 1st/2nd places in GSL (excludng "special tournaments" because they are weird), OSL, SSL
- identify players that are on this list at least twice. These are people that show a minimal required level of consistence in the only tournaments that actually matter:
Nestea, MC, Mvp, Life, Innovation, soO, Rain, Maru, MKP,DRG
- sigh with a slight relief that the list has 10 names so can be used without pulling other names from ass
- sigh with a slight disgust that I have crafted the criteria so stupidly that MKP is on the list and Parting isn't
- stare into the liquipedia pages endlessly to find more people that would push MKP and DRG out from top 10
- contemplate including 2014 "GSL global champs" to gain Parting but have to endure including Zest and lose all credibility
- contemplate how everyone is so crazy about sOs who did not reach the finals even once, appreciate that Stuchiu put him 16th
- be happy that Taeja is not on the list, even though the method was chosen primarily with this goal in mind
- still contemplate how badly I want Parting to be on the list, why doesn't the greedy bastard win a GSL instead of collecting easy money around the world?
Now it is getting hard and random:
- assign points for the placements
- 2 points 1st place
- 1 point 2nd place
- 1 point for any extra year your greatness spans (have a point from 2014? get a point if you have a point from 2012, get four if you were so good in 2010) - it is supposed to be of all times, right? (i call this "the lifeline ")
Nestea 7
MC 7
Mvp 8 (yay!)
Life 7
Innovation 4
soO 5
Rain 4
Maru 6
MKP 3
DRG 3
- be honestly surprised that the out-of-the-ass point system at least puts MKP and DRG last and relieved that it indeed puts Mvp first (after being a little scared by the discovery that he has only two different years)
- see the need to decide tie-breakers - as it is "all times", tie-breakers are decided by length between points (guess why)
- assemble the final list in the correct order:
Mvp
Life
Mc
Nestea
Maru
soO
Innovation
Rain
Parting
DRG
Sry but excluding all the foreign tournaments and korean special events "cause they are weird" is completely ridiculous.
|
On April 14 2015 20:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 17:36 opisska wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The fact alone that you judge people based on "the meta", which is mostly a thing that exists only in the minds of TL posters and whiny foreigners makes your ranking irrelevant. It's almost sad how much work and passion you have invested into it only to become only an extremely sophisticated version of "I like those players the most". Your "tiering" process has the same flaw as almost everything ever done on TL - it includes players who are relevant only because of their success outside Korea and taking them into account increases the relevance of the foreign tourneys in a circular argument.
But one should not be just negative. I am not willing to put in 20 hours, so the example will not be as refined, but let's see just the rough outlines how would I go about such list in simple bullet points:
- open the list of 1st/2nd places in GSL (excludng "special tournaments" because they are weird), OSL, SSL
- identify players that are on this list at least twice. These are people that show a minimal required level of consistence in the only tournaments that actually matter:
Nestea, MC, Mvp, Life, Innovation, soO, Rain, Maru, MKP,DRG
- sigh with a slight relief that the list has 10 names so can be used without pulling other names from ass
- sigh with a slight disgust that I have crafted the criteria so stupidly that MKP is on the list and Parting isn't
- stare into the liquipedia pages endlessly to find more people that would push MKP and DRG out from top 10
- contemplate including 2014 "GSL global champs" to gain Parting but have to endure including Zest and lose all credibility
- contemplate how everyone is so crazy about sOs who did not reach the finals even once, appreciate that Stuchiu put him 16th
- be happy that Taeja is not on the list, even though the method was chosen primarily with this goal in mind
- still contemplate how badly I want Parting to be on the list, why doesn't the greedy bastard win a GSL instead of collecting easy money around the world?
Now it is getting hard and random:
- assign points for the placements
- 2 points 1st place
- 1 point 2nd place
- 1 point for any extra year your greatness spans (have a point from 2014? get a point if you have a point from 2012, get four if you were so good in 2010) - it is supposed to be of all times, right? (i call this "the lifeline ")
Nestea 7
MC 7
Mvp 8 (yay!)
Life 7
Innovation 4
soO 5
Rain 4
Maru 6
MKP 3
DRG 3
- be honestly surprised that the out-of-the-ass point system at least puts MKP and DRG last and relieved that it indeed puts Mvp first (after being a little scared by the discovery that he has only two different years)
- see the need to decide tie-breakers - as it is "all times", tie-breakers are decided by length between points (guess why)
- assemble the final list in the correct order:
Mvp
Life
Mc
Nestea
Maru
soO
Innovation
Rain
Parting
DRG
Sry but excluding all the foreign tournaments and korean special events "cause they are weird" is completely ridiculous.
The process described is not supposed to be rocket science and is not supposed to be taken dead seriously, I hope that is clear from the post.
However, what I really mean seriously is that if I am to call someone "one of the greatest of all time", I require said player to do well in the best competition in the world and that is the Korean leagues. From these, the regular GSL and recently the OSLs and SSL have a clear, readable structure guaranteeing the highest possible level of competition, while the "special" events have the tendency to have players from a more limited pool, sometimes even invites based on foreign tourneys etc. In general, judging their relevance would require going through the players one by one and that is exactly the thing I think should not be done, because it introduces bias inevitably.
As for foreign tournaments, I am not disregarding them "because they are weird" (that was refering to the special korean leagues with the reasoning above behind it), but because I do not consider them the highest level of competition. You can go on forever naming "strong" players in a given tourney, but as I have already explained, a lot of these are considered "strong" because they do well in foreigner tournaments and that is an argument by circle. Yes, many of them are GSL players or even title holders, but seeing as the player list of the GSL itself is in a constant flux, that by itself is not guarantee of the highest level of competition.
At the end of the day, the strongest argument for me not to value the foreigner competition as highly as many do here is the observation that a majority of successful players of the foreigner circuit do indeed fail any time they try to challenge themselves with the GSL. Yes, there are exceptions (lately MMA for example) but these are much more exceptions that rule.
edit: however let us see what the Stuchiu's list actually is. I am going to base any further aggression against the list largely on the position awarded to Taeja.
|
Well i agree that the korean tournaments should be the most important factor. I simply didn't agree with the complete lack of foreign tournaments (while i see what you mean with circular reasoning, i don't think this is entirely true here) and korean special events.
They should be less important (gsl/ssl/osl > korean special (hot6ix,kespa cup) > foreign tournaments (and these should be rated differently too, a HSC =/= an IEM) ; in general, there are exceptions)
So yeah i kinda agree with you but i guess i didn't notice that you aren't 100% serious 
|
On April 14 2015 20:54 The_Red_Viper wrote:Well i agree that the korean tournaments should be the most important factor. I simply didn't agree with the complete lack of foreign tournaments (while i see what you mean with circular reasoning, i don't think this is entirely true here) and korean special events. They should be less important (gsl/ssl/osl > korean special (hot6ix,kespa cup) > foreign tournaments (and these should be rated differently too, a HSC =/= an IEM) ; in general, there are exceptions) So yeah i kinda agree with you but i guess i didn't notice that you aren't 100% serious
Now I had to consider that people may actually take everything I write here seriously. That considered, it is likely that some people think that I am a total moron 
|
On April 14 2015 21:10 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 20:54 The_Red_Viper wrote:Well i agree that the korean tournaments should be the most important factor. I simply didn't agree with the complete lack of foreign tournaments (while i see what you mean with circular reasoning, i don't think this is entirely true here) and korean special events. They should be less important (gsl/ssl/osl > korean special (hot6ix,kespa cup) > foreign tournaments (and these should be rated differently too, a HSC =/= an IEM) ; in general, there are exceptions) So yeah i kinda agree with you but i guess i didn't notice that you aren't 100% serious Now I had to consider that people may actually take everything I write here seriously. That considered, it is likely that some people think that I am a total moron
Haha i don't know, i just disagreed with this comment :D
But yeah i think Taeja will be way too high as well ^^
|
I also look forwrd to seeing Taeja's ranking and its justification.
In terms of ability I think he is the greatest, but not in terms of achievements.
|
On April 14 2015 13:11 Shellshock wrote:
is stephano in the top 10?
If not, we riot
|
On April 14 2015 23:07 oGoZenob wrote:If not, we riot
everytime someone says that they will "riot", I read as if they are threatening that they switch to LoL
|
On April 14 2015 23:21 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 23:07 oGoZenob wrote:On April 14 2015 13:11 Shellshock wrote:
is stephano in the top 10? If not, we riot everytime someone says that they will "riot", I read as if they are threatening that they switch to LoL
oh geez no, let's not go to such extremes ! I'm only talking about burning their houses and hunt and impale them with pitchforks. It's much more humane
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
I personally think you shouldn't be going into a list trying to bar someone completely out at all.
|
at this point I'm not sure if opisska is a troll
|
I would have Stephano top 5. His run at the top was beautiful and he was truly feared by all who faced him. I remember the Korea vs The World showmatch at IPL (maybe?) where all other foreigners got crushed until Stephano came up and ran through each Korean until losing a zvz , narrowly losing the showmatch. It was a true pleasure to watch him in his prime, even if some think it was more about balance, doesn't matter to me.
Edit: On April 15 2015 07:44 Cricketer12 wrote:
he lost to squirtle after beating life who won 4 games mc seed DRG
|
I think we should ban Shellshock if Parting doesnt make it into the top ten
|
On April 15 2015 03:32 Ctone23 wrote:
I would have Stephano top 5. His run at the top was beautiful and he was truly feared by all who faced him. I remember the Korea vs The World showmatch at IPL (maybe?) where all other foreigners got crushed until Stephano came up and ran through each Korean until finally falling in a zvz, narrowly losing the showmatch. It was a true pleasure to watch him in his prime, even if some think it was more about balance, doesn't matter to me.
Thank you i had forgot that Korea vs Rest of the world match
He almoooooooost reverse all kill korea composed of Life, MC, Squirtle, DRG, Seed
I remember seeing those on tilt, too bad i couldn't found the vod that was so so sick
|
On April 15 2015 04:59 hyuu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 03:32 Ctone23 wrote:
I would have Stephano top 5. His run at the top was beautiful and he was truly feared by all who faced him. I remember the Korea vs The World showmatch at IPL (maybe?) where all other foreigners got crushed until Stephano came up and ran through each Korean until finally falling in a zvz, narrowly losing the showmatch. It was a true pleasure to watch him in his prime, even if some think it was more about balance, doesn't matter to me. Thank you i had forgot that Korea vs Rest of the world matchHe almoooooooost reverse all kill korea composed of Life, MC, Squirtle, DRG, Seed I remember seeing those on tilt, too bad i couldn't found the vod that was so so sick
Ah thanks for that! Looks like I mis-remembered the match he lost but yeah that was some bad ass play regardless
|
if you could do that for foreigners, it would make me so happy
|
On April 15 2015 03:32 Ctone23 wrote:
I would have Stephano top 5. His run at the top was beautiful and he was truly feared by all who faced him. I remember the Korea vs The World showmatch at IPL (maybe?) where all other foreigners got crushed until Stephano came up and ran through each Korean until finally falling in a zvz, narrowly losing the showmatch. It was a true pleasure to watch him in his prime, even if some think it was more about balance, doesn't matter to me.
he lost to squirtle after beating life who won 4 games mc seed DRG
|
doesn't look to bad for the king of wings
and congratz on the work and everything you've done on TL !
|
On April 14 2015 17:36 opisska wrote:
The fact alone that you judge people based on "the meta", which is mostly a thing that exists only in the minds of TL posters and whiny foreigners makes your ranking irrelevant. It's almost sad how much work and passion you have invested into it only to become only an extremely sophisticated version of "I like those players the most". Your "tiering" process has the same flaw as almost everything ever done on TL - it includes players who are relevant only because of their success outside Korea and taking them into account increases the relevance of the foreign tourneys in a circular argument.
But one should not be just negative. I am not willing to put in 20 hours, so the example will not be as refined, but let's see just the rough outlines how would I go about such list in simple bullet points:
- open the list of 1st/2nd places in GSL (excludng "special tournaments" because they are weird), OSL, SSL
- identify players that are on this list at least twice. These are people that show a minimal required level of consistence in the only tournaments that actually matter:
Nestea, MC, Mvp, Life, Innovation, soO, Rain, Maru, MKP,DRG
- sigh with a slight relief that the list has 10 names so can be used without pulling other names from ass
- sigh with a slight disgust that I have crafted the criteria so stupidly that MKP is on the list and Parting isn't
- stare into the liquipedia pages endlessly to find more people that would push MKP and DRG out from top 10
- contemplate including 2014 "GSL global champs" to gain Parting but have to endure including Zest and lose all credibility
- contemplate how everyone is so crazy about sOs who did not reach the finals even once, appreciate that Stuchiu put him 16th
- be happy that Taeja is not on the list, even though the method was chosen primarily with this goal in mind
- still contemplate how badly I want Parting to be on the list, why doesn't the greedy bastard win a GSL instead of collecting easy money around the world?
Now it is getting hard and random:
- assign points for the placements
- 2 points 1st place
- 1 point 2nd place
- 1 point for any extra year your greatness spans (have a point from 2014? get a point if you have a point from 2012, get four if you were so good in 2010) - it is supposed to be of all times, right? (i call this "the lifeline ")
Nestea 7
MC 7
Mvp 8 (yay!)
Life 7
Innovation 4
soO 5
Rain 4
Maru 6
MKP 3
DRG 3
- be honestly surprised that the out-of-the-ass point system at least puts MKP and DRG last and relieved that it indeed puts Mvp first (after being a little scared by the discovery that he has only two different years)
- see the need to decide tie-breakers - as it is "all times", tie-breakers are decided by length between points (guess why)
- assemble the final list in the correct order:
Mvp
Life
Mc
Nestea
Maru
soO
Innovation
Rain
Parting
DRG
Like your way better in terms of awarding points. At least it's systematic and quantifiable. A much more reliable methodology than stuchiu's.
It's less arbitrary and give irrefutable 'evidence' as opposed to trying to justify why 1 run is more impressive because so and so kick ass or puma's 1-1-1 makes his win over HerO less impressive. This way it becomes opiniated instead of a systematic and transparent grading.
One other problem with stuchiu's methods is that it favours greatly players who attends more tournaments. As they have more 'lives' to get a good run. If you are going to reward victories, you should also punish defeat. When you got your ass handed to you by a low tier player during a tournament, it should be detrimental.
The best way to rank the greatest sc2 players in a systematic and palatable way is this.
Take the weekly ELO ranking of all the players for the duration that they are active and not retired. Then average it out. The player with the with the highest average ranking is the greatest of all time.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
If I used that method, I'd take away all nuance. I'd have to say something like all those EU victories over Koreans with BL/infestor is somehow worth the same amount as Snute's/Bunny's/Naniwa's in 2014/2013.
I'd have to say something like Sniper beating Ryung is of equivalent or greater impressiveness than DRG beating Innovation. I made multiple degrees that made sense to me.
I'd ignore the metas (Which you can call arbitrary, but ignoring them is equally or even more arbitrary), the increased talent pool, pressure of lans, technical isues, bad formats (Lucifron was coin flipped out of DH after a third tiebreak)
Yes, it favors players who attend more tournaments, but it also favors players who did well in Korea. Maru outdid mutlple players who had 4-5 years of international travel with almost only Korean lans. I also did keep losing to bad opponents in mind. (Parting's WCG victory was a detriment to him).
There is a reason we think of Nada as one of the greatest of all time. Even if we used ELO and went with pure statistics you end up with Midas > Nada in 2007. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/final-edits/57918-clutch-engage. Yet if you asked anyone, they'd almost certinaly put oov, Boxer, July Yellow over Midas in a greatest of all time list there.
Like I said, I hate the hard numbers approach. It takes away everything I think is interesting about the history, the legacy, the stories and the games of the players. You can disagree with me, but that's how I see it.
I actually think that approach is way more biased than mine because it ignores large tracts of relevant games for even more arbitrary reasons than mine (Not in Korea?). I took every criteria any fan would think of when thinking about what makes greatness and balanced them.
|
Dun get me wrong. It's a mighty good effort u have put in. Something the TL community can debate about and have interaction on.
Just an opinion on the methology. Because there is a system that you put in place makes it feels like a scientific venture. It can pass off as being a definitive list based on your system. As it attempts to cover as many facets as you can think of.
But in the end it carries as much weight as saying MVP is the GOAT because he won 4 GSL. It in itself is still an opinion no matter how much justification you add.
A point system or rather a quantifiable system is an exercise to determine the GOAT based on whatever is the predetermined scoring system.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
But scoring systems are also designed by people. Whoever designs a scoring system must assign values to results and a formula by which one can calculate the final ranking. That.doesnt happen on its own, so there will always be s degree of personal reasoning. A hard numbers approach does not automatically improve any ranking, and I would put more faith in stuchiu than any mathematical ranking if I wanted an outside perspective on who the best player is right now.
|
United States97276 Posts
On April 15 2015 03:42 Paljas wrote:
I think we should ban Shellshock if Parting doesnt make it into the top ten
he's just a scrub world champion and multiple gsl finalist. no way he's even in the top 50
|
O.k I did the exact same process, only I looked at every player that ever played Starcraft and came up with this list, took me about 100 hours btw, I'd usually say I don't believe in perfection, but this list is.
10. Life
9. MVP
8.Cool
7.Tester
6.IntoTheRainbow
5.TheBest
4.HongUn
3.BitByBit
2.InCa
1.Clide
|
United States97276 Posts
On April 17 2015 23:55 Nirel wrote:
O.k I did the exact same process, only I looked at every player that ever played Starcraft and came up with this list, took me about 100 hours btw, I'd usually say I don't believe in perfection, but this list is.
10. Life
9. MVP
8.Cool
7.Tester
6.IntoTheRainbow
5.TheBest
4.HongUn
3.BitByBit
2.InCa
1.Clide
Cool behind HopeTorture?
|
your Country52797 Posts
On April 17 2015 23:55 Nirel wrote:
O.k I did the exact same process, only I looked at every player that ever played Starcraft and came up with this list, took me about 100 hours btw, I'd usually say I don't believe in perfection, but this list is.
10. Life
9. MVP
8.Cool
7.Tester
6.IntoTheRainbow
5.TheBest
4.HongUn
3.BitByBit
2.InCa
1.Clide
Bad list, TheBest definitely needs to be above HongUn IMO.
|
On April 18 2015 00:57 The_Templar wrote:
Bad list, TheBest definitely needs to be above HongUn IMO.
On April 18 2015 00:52 Shellshock wrote:
Cool behind HopeTorture?
Well your opinions don't matter since this list is based on objective scientific facts, I don't care about guesswork or popularity.
If you must know then HongUn is higher because even though TheBest introduced Banshee micro, you can't forget HongUn was the first to introduce safe and solid Protoss play, it was a close call but HongUn edged out in the end.
HopeTorture is obviously in a higher rank than FruitDealer in part because his 2nd place was much more impressive than FruitDealer's 1st, if you take into account the fact that the Meta was heavily favoring Zerg at the time (2 Zerg GSL champions in a row) and that the maps were heavily favoring Zerg (think how fast Zerglings could knock on your wall in Steps Of War), it's not even close.
Don't question science!
|
Top 3 has to have mc, mvp, life
so of the remaining players who got screwed?
Losira
SOS
Bomber
Taeja
Parting
Stephano
Polt
maybe its taeja, polt, stephano, parting, and bomber because they were so strong in the foreign tournaments and not like losira and sos in gsl and proleague.
Leaving SOS, and Losira for the final two????
|
your Country52797 Posts
On April 19 2015 10:30 tokinho wrote:
Top 3 has to have mc, mvp, life
so of the remaining players who got screwed?
Losira
SOS
Bomber
Taeja
Parting
Stephano
Polt
maybe its taeja, polt, stephano, parting, and bomber because they were so strong in the foreign tournaments and not like losira and sos in gsl and proleague.
Leaving SOS, and Losira for the final two????
sOs is #16.
|
for what its worth sOs should be on the list...but seriously people...read the leenock piece
|
After reading that Leenock piece I still think sOs belongs on the list over Leenock. In the last couple of paragraphs Stuchiu cites consistency as a deciding factor in making his decision, but if ProLeague results were a factor in his judgement I think things would be different. Obviously ProLeague is a best-of-one format which is inherently volatile so I understand why he would ignore it in favor of GSL series results for example, but I went through and added up some of his stats anyway.
sOs' StarCraft 2 stats from the 2011-2012 hybrid season to now (excluding play-off results): 74W - 35L = 67.89% win rate
You can say what you want about ProLeague and it's format but having an 67% win rate across all match-ups over a four year period almost exclusively against KeSPA players shouldn't be ignored.
|
Fiddler's Green42661 Posts
Then you'd have to include all of Leenock's GSTL stats as well as factor in the fact that hybrid season didn't include every relevant player and then remember that half of the players in 2012-2013 retired afterwards and then find a way to evaluate correctly how good they all were (outside of PL), then measure those against each other.
Oh and then you'd have to list every opponent they played, discount free wins (Terror/Inori come to mind for both), figure out their opponents' forms during that time period (especially problematic for the first 2 years of PL), include the metas then decide how you want to measure PL format vs All-Kill format.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I think the only problem with the way you made the list is that you may have considered a bit too many factors lol. Sometimes choosing a smaller list of stuff to focus on means that you are able to give them more thoughts and come to better conclusions for each element in comparison to having, say, 20 items and trying to rank each player on them.
Having said that, I know that if I was making a similar list, I would've followed the exact same method and considered just as many points. It makes the list feel more complete since you tried to take everything into account, so, despite its subjectivity, I think it's good overall. Well done
Other point that you could've done is breaking down the list instead separate times since it's pretty hard to compare Fruitdealer's victory to Mvp's victory or Life's in HoTS etc... I realize that's not the main point of your ranking though (greatest players of all time) so it makes sense why you didn't do it this way.
|
3 protoss out of 15 players. So much racism. No parting, squirtle, or sos. so much terran love. I would like to see the post one why not parting, sos, squirtle.
|
On April 16 2015 22:40 Samx wrote:
Dun get me wrong. It's a mighty good effort u have put in. Something the TL community can debate about and have interaction on.
Just an opinion on the methology. Because there is a system that you put in place makes it feels like a scientific venture. It can pass off as being a definitive list based on your system. As it attempts to cover as many facets as you can think of.
But in the end it carries as much weight as saying MVP is the GOAT because he won 4 GSL. It in itself is still an opinion no matter how much justification you add.
A point system or rather a quantifiable system is an exercise to determine the GOAT based on whatever is the predetermined scoring system.
Quantifying and systematizing stuff doesnt make it scientific. And something being scientifical doesnt mean it found truth or that it is definitive, Obviously his list is an opinion, and a quantified, systematic list would also be an opinion(the criteria used to quantify would always be subjective), and stuchiu made a SOUND argument(for anyone that is watching sc2 for a long time at least) to why a simple quantificative system like opisska's(or whatever) is deeply flawed. If you get jitters from being fooled into thinking this is a perfect list because it has deep criteria your interaction with reality is too simplistic. Complex, coherent explanations having depth doesn't mean they're truth. Finding grand, seemingly complex and systematic stuff the bearers of truth and reality is just a fallacy of authority.
On April 26 2015 21:16 tokinho wrote:
3 protoss out of 15 players. So much racism. No parting, squirtle, or sos. so much terran love. I would like to see the post one why not parting, sos, squirtle.
stuchiu explains why he didnt include parting here
|
I still don't understand how can you even mention stuff like "dropped a map to combatEX" as an argument. He probably didn't give a damn and watched some anime with one eye and texted on the phone with one hand, because he knew that if anything goes wrong, the second he starts playing seriously, he wins. SC2 is not figure skating, there are no point for style awarded and any serious competitor takes that into account in how much energy he invests to a given game. That's why only results should matter, because that was the goal the players tried to achieve, not "looking great" during the process. Also that's why "the runs" aka who they faced is a completely absurd metric. Some players could actually have benefited in this rating if they had dropped a game in a group stage just to get harder opponents in the bracket later (or refused to qualify for a tourney in one way to get to a highly stacked open bracket instead), not to mention the player-pick format of GSL ro16. But that's not what they were trying to achieve, was it? You are essentially evaluating players in disciplines they did not compete in.
|
I've finally gotten around to reading these criteria and I feel like you're discounting a huge potential game-changer when it comes to Greatest of All Time discussion: Teamleagues. There are players out there who, while they may not have had the world's best individual league results, have been absolute monsters in teamleagues. I wonder how the rankings might have shifted had metrics like Overall Teamleague Record, Ace Match Victories, All-Kills, etc. been considered.
|
Poland3748 Posts
Why results are based on Premier events only and not also non-online majors? Also it's inconsistent - you list most premiers but not all of them - MLG Global Invitiational, Code As are missing. On the other hand WCG Korea is listed - it wasn't premier. What's the deal? (Did I miss s.t.?)
Why not include some majors in i.e. lower tiers. Gainward is probably best example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
