|
If sumail+rtz is the reason why rtz left then why are they on the same team again? 99% sure it was ppd+rtz which resulted in rtz leaving.
|
RTZ again? Removing EG banner from my profile right now...
|
On September 17 2016 06:13 Dracolich70 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 05:22 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 04:40 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 03:12 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 02:07 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 02:03 hariooo wrote:On September 16 2016 20:23 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 16 2016 19:16 hariooo wrote:On September 16 2016 15:01 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 16 2016 14:18 Birdie wrote:I think it was fine because they're pro players who can adjust their farm priority and playstyle to fit their team mates. And it was fine because they got good results during that period, too. ![[image loading]](https://puu.sh/rbEA3/2cfb0f43be.png) PPD struggled to find the solution, and ending up sitting between two stools, where neither really shined. As said, EG pulled very consistent results stil, albeit life and death 2-1s against the wall more often than not, in a field where they still lived on having the same core longer than other teams. RTZ rejoined in august 2015, and they only won The Summit 4 and Captains draft, and even though they did get plenty of top placings, it is not like the several 1st placings prior to him rejoining, so saying it is fine is evidently another way of saying it was not a disaster, which it wasn't. This was supposedly meant as an upgrade, and it wasn't - only on paper. Even with results in front of you, you'll keep spinning it every which way to keep your narrative going. Losing close sets to other tier 1 teams deep into a tournament run definitely implies systemic issues between your mid and safe lane players. Smh There's exactly zero evidence that RTZ+Sumail is a problem. There is no spin, but a comparison in play. It was meant to be an upgrade, but how can you ever say it was? Most people agree that it was very problematic. Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement. No, I watch games, and I am very good at it. I believe your argument rested on placements, as proof things worked, despite the decline in result, and more importantly in how the interaction between RTZ and Sumail worked out, which never was great, and the end result was also RTZ leaving - again. No, you cited EG's performance as evidence that RTZ + Sumail didn't work out, but since their team placement was pretty strong it doesn't support your point at all. It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place. But yeah I'm sure you're very good at watching games. Top dota watcher EU. I said that it didn't work optimally. I also said this, "As said, EG pulled very consistent results stil, albeit life and death 2-1s against the wall more often than not, in a field where they still lived on having the same core longer than other teams.". So not sure about the team placement was my point, but they did decline. You just said, "Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement.", seem to relate to you, yes, considering you are using results, as evidence of working. Yeah, I am good. " It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place.". So since this is where you argued, essentially you said nothing at all. You are brilliant. Them getting 3rd at Frankfurt could just as well mean that although the team got better, OG/Secret improved even more, do you understand? And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good because they didn't get 1st place as often, you're not realizing that you've actually not proven anything. You've failed to isolate RTZ+Sumail as the cause for the performance. You could just as well say Aui is a better 4 than Fear by that logic, which would be equally pointless. Your argument seems to be that variable X changed and results went down therefore X was the root cause of the performance. Unfortunately, EG from TI5 to Frankfurt major had variables A, B, C, ..., Z all modified. So to pin it on RTZ+Sumail you need to have arguments specific to that. You simply haven't done so or even tried. I understand that you can't make up your mind who says what, and more busy trying to have a discussion with yourself, ultimately wasting everyones time. "And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good". Not sure I said that, because I am pretty sure I didn't say that.
It's pretty clear that you're saying EG got worse with the return of RTZ and implied that the RTZ+Sumail combination was what caused it. That you can't actually defend the point with anything resembling an argument outside of being salty at me is enough though.
|
RTZ and sumail was a solid roster that had good results, if there was a issue it was personality clashes, and I think ppd's twitter has told us where that problem was
|
What might have been missed out of these discussions is the previous iteration with Sumail+RTZ was also a "dream-team" same as this one. You don't build superstar teams and expect them or us (the fans) to be satisified with getting 3rd at some tournament or even winning some "smaller" tournaments. The last 3-4 lineups RTZ has been on has been built to win the biggest tournaments, not just get decent results.
To be honest, with a lineup like they have now, anything but winning pretty much everything will be seen as a disapointment. There is a difference between say the new Alliance getting 3rd at a major and this EG getting 3rd.
|
As sad as I am about PPD and Fear no longer in the actual team, I think too many people are making an assumption that Cr1t won't make a good captain, egos will get too big and clash and that ultimately, the team is going to fail within 6 months. How about ppl chill and wait and see what happens? Nobody knows and it could turn out to be the best iteration of EG yet (especially if Arteezy can return to his Secret form back in 2015).
|
I will miss PPD networth and average KDA. Selfless starving pos 5 playstyle. Great capt. Wish succesfull year for him, coach Fear and new EG lineup
|
On September 17 2016 08:50 BigO wrote:
What might have been missed out of these discussions is the previous iteration with Sumail+RTZ was also a "dream-team" same as this one. You don't build superstar teams and expect them or us (the fans) to be satisified with getting 3rd at some tournament or even winning some "smaller" tournaments. The last 3-4 lineups RTZ has been on has been built to win the biggest tournaments, not just get decent results.
To be honest, with a lineup like they have now, anything but winning pretty much everything will be seen as a disapointment. There is a difference between say the new Alliance getting 3rd at a major and this EG getting 3rd.
I feel like all the players bar Cr1t had longer periods of shitty results last year, getting into TOP3s somewhat consistently would be a great success for them in the first 2 major seasons. Especially the consistency part without a great drafter in PPD and leader gelling personality ingame in Fear.
It was very different last year as you had dominating teams swapping positions, the pressure to get results was much higher.
|
On September 17 2016 07:31 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 06:13 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 05:22 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 04:40 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 03:12 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 02:07 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 02:03 hariooo wrote:On September 16 2016 20:23 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 16 2016 19:16 hariooo wrote:On September 16 2016 15:01 Dracolich70 wrote:
[quote]PPD struggled to find the solution, and ending up sitting between two stools, where neither really shined.
As said, EG pulled very consistent results stil, albeit life and death 2-1s against the wall more often than not, in a field where they still lived on having the same core longer than other teams.
RTZ rejoined in august 2015, and they only won The Summit 4 and Captains draft, and even though they did get plenty of top placings, it is not like the several 1st placings prior to him rejoining, so saying it is fine is evidently another way of saying it was not a disaster, which it wasn't. This was supposedly meant as an upgrade, and it wasn't - only on paper.
Even with results in front of you, you'll keep spinning it every which way to keep your narrative going. Losing close sets to other tier 1 teams deep into a tournament run definitely implies systemic issues between your mid and safe lane players. Smh There's exactly zero evidence that RTZ+Sumail is a problem. There is no spin, but a comparison in play. It was meant to be an upgrade, but how can you ever say it was? Most people agree that it was very problematic. Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement. No, I watch games, and I am very good at it. I believe your argument rested on placements, as proof things worked, despite the decline in result, and more importantly in how the interaction between RTZ and Sumail worked out, which never was great, and the end result was also RTZ leaving - again. No, you cited EG's performance as evidence that RTZ + Sumail didn't work out, but since their team placement was pretty strong it doesn't support your point at all. It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place. But yeah I'm sure you're very good at watching games. Top dota watcher EU. I said that it didn't work optimally. I also said this, "As said, EG pulled very consistent results stil, albeit life and death 2-1s against the wall more often than not, in a field where they still lived on having the same core longer than other teams.". So not sure about the team placement was my point, but they did decline. You just said, "Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement.", seem to relate to you, yes, considering you are using results, as evidence of working. Yeah, I am good. " It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place.". So since this is where you argued, essentially you said nothing at all. You are brilliant. Them getting 3rd at Frankfurt could just as well mean that although the team got better, OG/Secret improved even more, do you understand? And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good because they didn't get 1st place as often, you're not realizing that you've actually not proven anything. You've failed to isolate RTZ+Sumail as the cause for the performance. You could just as well say Aui is a better 4 than Fear by that logic, which would be equally pointless. Your argument seems to be that variable X changed and results went down therefore X was the root cause of the performance. Unfortunately, EG from TI5 to Frankfurt major had variables A, B, C, ..., Z all modified. So to pin it on RTZ+Sumail you need to have arguments specific to that. You simply haven't done so or even tried. I understand that you can't make up your mind who says what, and more busy trying to have a discussion with yourself, ultimately wasting everyones time. "And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good". Not sure I said that, because I am pretty sure I didn't say that. It's pretty clear that you're saying EG got worse with the return of RTZ and implied that the RTZ+Sumail combination was what caused it. That you can't actually defend the point with anything resembling an argument outside of being salty at me is enough though. I am sure you can see there is a difference between, "RTZ+Sumail isn't good" and "it got worse.". Well, it should. And now you try to reconstruct something that has been pointed out, and yet you try to figure out what was actually said, when it is black on white.
It did. It was meant as an upgrade, and wasn't. On paper it should have been an upgrade, but it never worked optimally. But I have written this many times, and you misquote me on end.
When this becomes you wanting me to indulge in your own narrative, that you project onto me, it is no longer me you are trying to discuss with, but some idea in your head. When you changing your narrative, to amend your faults, and still get it wrong, it becomes an endless stream of trying to point out your glaring errors that distort a conversation from the get go, only to continue, and continue from an idea I am at fault here. If you watch games like you read, I am not surprised you see nothing.
I have defended my point even before you entered. No one cares to pursuade you to see what you can't see, and start off by saying it isn't true, only to end, you don't know either way.
|
On September 18 2016 01:20 Dracolich70 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2016 07:31 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 06:13 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 05:22 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 04:40 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 03:12 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 02:07 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 02:03 hariooo wrote:On September 16 2016 20:23 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 16 2016 19:16 hariooo wrote:
[quote]
Even with results in front of you, you'll keep spinning it every which way to keep your narrative going. Losing close sets to other tier 1 teams deep into a tournament run definitely implies systemic issues between your mid and safe lane players. Smh
There's exactly zero evidence that RTZ+Sumail is a problem. There is no spin, but a comparison in play. It was meant to be an upgrade, but how can you ever say it was? Most people agree that it was very problematic. Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement. No, I watch games, and I am very good at it. I believe your argument rested on placements, as proof things worked, despite the decline in result, and more importantly in how the interaction between RTZ and Sumail worked out, which never was great, and the end result was also RTZ leaving - again. No, you cited EG's performance as evidence that RTZ + Sumail didn't work out, but since their team placement was pretty strong it doesn't support your point at all. It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place. But yeah I'm sure you're very good at watching games. Top dota watcher EU. I said that it didn't work optimally. I also said this, "As said, EG pulled very consistent results stil, albeit life and death 2-1s against the wall more often than not, in a field where they still lived on having the same core longer than other teams.". So not sure about the team placement was my point, but they did decline. You just said, "Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement.", seem to relate to you, yes, considering you are using results, as evidence of working. Yeah, I am good. " It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place.". So since this is where you argued, essentially you said nothing at all. You are brilliant. Them getting 3rd at Frankfurt could just as well mean that although the team got better, OG/Secret improved even more, do you understand? And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good because they didn't get 1st place as often, you're not realizing that you've actually not proven anything. You've failed to isolate RTZ+Sumail as the cause for the performance. You could just as well say Aui is a better 4 than Fear by that logic, which would be equally pointless. Your argument seems to be that variable X changed and results went down therefore X was the root cause of the performance. Unfortunately, EG from TI5 to Frankfurt major had variables A, B, C, ..., Z all modified. So to pin it on RTZ+Sumail you need to have arguments specific to that. You simply haven't done so or even tried. I understand that you can't make up your mind who says what, and more busy trying to have a discussion with yourself, ultimately wasting everyones time. "And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good". Not sure I said that, because I am pretty sure I didn't say that. It's pretty clear that you're saying EG got worse with the return of RTZ and implied that the RTZ+Sumail combination was what caused it. That you can't actually defend the point with anything resembling an argument outside of being salty at me is enough though. I am sure you can see there is a difference between, "RTZ+Sumail isn't good" and "it got worse.". Well, it should. And now you try to reconstruct something that has been pointed out, and yet you try to figure out what was actually said, when it is black on white. It did. It was meant as an upgrade, and wasn't. On paper it should have been an upgrade, but it never worked optimally. But I have written this many times, and you misquote me on end.When this becomes you wanting me to indulge in your own narrative, that you project onto me, it is no longer me you are trying to discuss with, but some idea in your head. When you changing your narrative, to amend your faults, and still get it wrong, it becomes an endless stream of trying to point out your glaring errors that distort a conversation from the get go, only to continue, and continue from an idea I am at fault here. If you watch games like you read, I am not surprised you see nothing. I have defended my point even before you entered. No one cares to pursuade you to see what you can't see, and start off by saying it isn't true, only to end, you don't know either way.
Repeating something over and over and never supporting it with few real arguments. "I'm really good at watching games" isn't saying anything.
And if you're having a hard time writing maybe stick to shorter English sentences?
|
I have to say, "I'm really good at watching games" must surely get an end of year LiquidDota quote of the year award 
|
I mean, if we want to be real here. RTZ+Sumail lineup didn't win any Valve events while the lineup before that did (TI5) so there's always that. That should be about as much proof you could need in this discussion?
|
On September 19 2016 09:36 BigO wrote:
I mean, if we want to be real here. RTZ+Sumail lineup didn't win any Valve events while the lineup before that did (TI5) so there's always that. That should be about as much proof you could need in this discussion?
The Lineup was still fine, and did well. You can't win them all and EG probably weren't as hungry as before as it can be hard to motivate yourself for any tournament after you just won the biggest yet. And just because the roster on paper should have been an upgrade doesn't mean the team is unbeatable, Secret, OG and Liquid were all strong teams that emerged from the post TI5 shuffle, none of them were at TI5 so it's kinda hard to compare different tourneys to each other imo. Yes both Artour and SumaiL are often times greedy and some of their hero pool overlap, but both of them are also among the best players the scene has to offer in terms of raw talent and skill and it's really more of a luxury problem than an actual problem to have them both on the same team.
|
I have to judge PPD harshly for going to management so early. It made a lot of sense, but I don't see what would have stopped him from going to that position after another year or two of dominating the dota scene.
I don't think cr1t can bring the team together in the same way that fear-ppd-universe did. There's an absolute shitton of raw talent in every one of EG's team members, but I fear for lack of coordination, order, and synergy. It will absolutely not be the same style of team that we saw in years previous, if it is successful.
I give a 35% chance of PPD negotiating his way back into the prodota scene if this team falls apart. He is a very cautious and thoughtful individual, enough to make the economically questionable choice he has made- a choice of security over average potential gain given his skills. Yet it makes sense: PPD only gambles when he has to.
People who still think PPD is an ass are ignoring that he has never been meaner than he's had to been while still putting the context of the situation in plain terms. It was incredibly unlikely that pain would beat EG; PPD treated aui well by kicking him early even though it cost him rep, etc. Yes, that "cancerous" comment too was an attempt to explain why he'd done it, although flawed and rushed.
It's possible that he saw the demise of his own skill or primacy in one way or another. He had some good games in the last few series of TI6 and more bad ones. He is, ultimately, a personally conservative person. Perhaps he feared staying too long and ruining his chances of a future career in esports? Impossible to say. As for the future of EG.... good luck to cr1t, and FUCK all you people who say "oh EG is perfectly nice now that PPD is gone," he was one hell of a salty boy and he did not hesitate to say the emperor had no clothes
/rant end
|
PPD wanted to take a year off, and he works in a organization that was willing to let him take a year break from his job to do something different. I don't blame him, I am jealous
|
On September 19 2016 02:53 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2016 01:20 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 07:31 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 06:13 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 05:22 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 04:40 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 03:12 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 02:07 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 02:03 hariooo wrote:On September 16 2016 20:23 Dracolich70 wrote:
[quote]There is no spin, but a comparison in play. It was meant to be an upgrade, but how can you ever say it was?
Most people agree that it was very problematic.
Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement. No, I watch games, and I am very good at it. I believe your argument rested on placements, as proof things worked, despite the decline in result, and more importantly in how the interaction between RTZ and Sumail worked out, which never was great, and the end result was also RTZ leaving - again. No, you cited EG's performance as evidence that RTZ + Sumail didn't work out, but since their team placement was pretty strong it doesn't support your point at all. It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place. But yeah I'm sure you're very good at watching games. Top dota watcher EU. I said that it didn't work optimally. I also said this, "As said, EG pulled very consistent results stil, albeit life and death 2-1s against the wall more often than not, in a field where they still lived on having the same core longer than other teams.". So not sure about the team placement was my point, but they did decline. You just said, "Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement.", seem to relate to you, yes, considering you are using results, as evidence of working. Yeah, I am good. " It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place.". So since this is where you argued, essentially you said nothing at all. You are brilliant. Them getting 3rd at Frankfurt could just as well mean that although the team got better, OG/Secret improved even more, do you understand? And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good because they didn't get 1st place as often, you're not realizing that you've actually not proven anything. You've failed to isolate RTZ+Sumail as the cause for the performance. You could just as well say Aui is a better 4 than Fear by that logic, which would be equally pointless. Your argument seems to be that variable X changed and results went down therefore X was the root cause of the performance. Unfortunately, EG from TI5 to Frankfurt major had variables A, B, C, ..., Z all modified. So to pin it on RTZ+Sumail you need to have arguments specific to that. You simply haven't done so or even tried. I understand that you can't make up your mind who says what, and more busy trying to have a discussion with yourself, ultimately wasting everyones time. "And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good". Not sure I said that, because I am pretty sure I didn't say that. It's pretty clear that you're saying EG got worse with the return of RTZ and implied that the RTZ+Sumail combination was what caused it. That you can't actually defend the point with anything resembling an argument outside of being salty at me is enough though. I am sure you can see there is a difference between, "RTZ+Sumail isn't good" and "it got worse.". Well, it should. And now you try to reconstruct something that has been pointed out, and yet you try to figure out what was actually said, when it is black on white. It did. It was meant as an upgrade, and wasn't. On paper it should have been an upgrade, but it never worked optimally. But I have written this many times, and you misquote me on end.When this becomes you wanting me to indulge in your own narrative, that you project onto me, it is no longer me you are trying to discuss with, but some idea in your head. When you changing your narrative, to amend your faults, and still get it wrong, it becomes an endless stream of trying to point out your glaring errors that distort a conversation from the get go, only to continue, and continue from an idea I am at fault here. If you watch games like you read, I am not surprised you see nothing. I have defended my point even before you entered. No one cares to pursuade you to see what you can't see, and start off by saying it isn't true, only to end, you don't know either way. Repeating something over and over and never supporting it with few real arguments. "I'm really good at watching games" isn't saying anything. And if you're having a hard time writing maybe stick to shorter English sentences? And here I thought it was you, that kept on making the reading and quoting mistakes, because that is what evidence shows...
It is all well, I didn't just say, "I am really good at watching games", isn't it.
When you stumble in your shoelaces 7 times, while trying to have a conversation, where you are stuck with no clue anyway, you are not really worth the effort of explaining something, that has been explained. Sorry.
|
one more ego
one less championship
|
On September 20 2016 10:30 Dracolich70 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 02:53 hariooo wrote:On September 18 2016 01:20 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 07:31 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 06:13 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 05:22 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 04:40 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 03:12 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 02:07 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 02:03 hariooo wrote:
[quote]
Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement. No, I watch games, and I am very good at it. I believe your argument rested on placements, as proof things worked, despite the decline in result, and more importantly in how the interaction between RTZ and Sumail worked out, which never was great, and the end result was also RTZ leaving - again. No, you cited EG's performance as evidence that RTZ + Sumail didn't work out, but since their team placement was pretty strong it doesn't support your point at all. It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place. But yeah I'm sure you're very good at watching games. Top dota watcher EU. I said that it didn't work optimally. I also said this, "As said, EG pulled very consistent results stil, albeit life and death 2-1s against the wall more often than not, in a field where they still lived on having the same core longer than other teams.". So not sure about the team placement was my point, but they did decline. You just said, "Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement.", seem to relate to you, yes, considering you are using results, as evidence of working. Yeah, I am good. " It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place.". So since this is where you argued, essentially you said nothing at all. You are brilliant. Them getting 3rd at Frankfurt could just as well mean that although the team got better, OG/Secret improved even more, do you understand? And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good because they didn't get 1st place as often, you're not realizing that you've actually not proven anything. You've failed to isolate RTZ+Sumail as the cause for the performance. You could just as well say Aui is a better 4 than Fear by that logic, which would be equally pointless. Your argument seems to be that variable X changed and results went down therefore X was the root cause of the performance. Unfortunately, EG from TI5 to Frankfurt major had variables A, B, C, ..., Z all modified. So to pin it on RTZ+Sumail you need to have arguments specific to that. You simply haven't done so or even tried. I understand that you can't make up your mind who says what, and more busy trying to have a discussion with yourself, ultimately wasting everyones time. "And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good". Not sure I said that, because I am pretty sure I didn't say that. It's pretty clear that you're saying EG got worse with the return of RTZ and implied that the RTZ+Sumail combination was what caused it. That you can't actually defend the point with anything resembling an argument outside of being salty at me is enough though. I am sure you can see there is a difference between, "RTZ+Sumail isn't good" and "it got worse.". Well, it should. And now you try to reconstruct something that has been pointed out, and yet you try to figure out what was actually said, when it is black on white. It did. It was meant as an upgrade, and wasn't. On paper it should have been an upgrade, but it never worked optimally. But I have written this many times, and you misquote me on end.When this becomes you wanting me to indulge in your own narrative, that you project onto me, it is no longer me you are trying to discuss with, but some idea in your head. When you changing your narrative, to amend your faults, and still get it wrong, it becomes an endless stream of trying to point out your glaring errors that distort a conversation from the get go, only to continue, and continue from an idea I am at fault here. If you watch games like you read, I am not surprised you see nothing. I have defended my point even before you entered. No one cares to pursuade you to see what you can't see, and start off by saying it isn't true, only to end, you don't know either way. Repeating something over and over and never supporting it with few real arguments. "I'm really good at watching games" isn't saying anything. And if you're having a hard time writing maybe stick to shorter English sentences? And here I thought it was you, that kept on making the reading and quoting mistakes, because that is what evidence shows... It is all well, I didn't just say, "I am really good at watching games", isn't it. When you stumble in your shoelaces 7 times, while trying to have a conversation, where you are stuck with no clue anyway, you are not really worth the effort of explaining something, that has been explained. Sorry.
Someone should have told you commas are not your friend. Your posts are getting more non sequitur by the post. Don't worry about it though I'm really good at making forum posts so don't feel too bad.
On to a real topic though, the PPD move is pretty strange. He almost certainly didn't want to play with Artour again which probably affected his decision but it's really hard to say which direction the cause and effect went. Maybe he just lost the fire since he's already reached the top and he wouldn't have Fear anymore as a counterbalance?
|
On September 16 2016 22:17 Shergal wrote:
i don't feel like you need a "leader" to play a coherent dota game. does anyone here really think fy is a leader? yet vg with both black and hao were the best team in the world for a while and pretty much won everything except for one grand final series. misery doesn't even like captaining yet DC were easily the best team at TI outside of wings and had the most clear, identifiable gameplan of the bunch
What makes you say fy is not a leader?
Also, just because you don't like doing something doesn't mean you're not fucking amazing at it (Misery).
Can't really agree on DC "easily" being the best team outside of Wings either.
-Edit-
On September 20 2016 11:19 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2016 10:30 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 19 2016 02:53 hariooo wrote:On September 18 2016 01:20 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 07:31 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 06:13 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 05:22 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 04:40 Dracolich70 wrote:On September 17 2016 03:12 hariooo wrote:On September 17 2016 02:07 Dracolich70 wrote:
[quote]No, I watch games, and I am very good at it. I believe your argument rested on placements, as proof things worked, despite the decline in result, and more importantly in how the interaction between RTZ and Sumail worked out, which never was great, and the end result was also RTZ leaving - again.
No, you cited EG's performance as evidence that RTZ + Sumail didn't work out, but since their team placement was pretty strong it doesn't support your point at all. It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place. But yeah I'm sure you're very good at watching games. Top dota watcher EU. I said that it didn't work optimally. I also said this, "As said, EG pulled very consistent results stil, albeit life and death 2-1s against the wall more often than not, in a field where they still lived on having the same core longer than other teams.". So not sure about the team placement was my point, but they did decline. You just said, "Because you seem to be making the fundamental mistake of confusing relative placements with team improvement.", seem to relate to you, yes, considering you are using results, as evidence of working. Yeah, I am good. " It's also not evidence that RTZ+Sumail works but burden is on you since you made the claim in the first place.". So since this is where you argued, essentially you said nothing at all. You are brilliant. Them getting 3rd at Frankfurt could just as well mean that although the team got better, OG/Secret improved even more, do you understand? And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good because they didn't get 1st place as often, you're not realizing that you've actually not proven anything. You've failed to isolate RTZ+Sumail as the cause for the performance. You could just as well say Aui is a better 4 than Fear by that logic, which would be equally pointless. Your argument seems to be that variable X changed and results went down therefore X was the root cause of the performance. Unfortunately, EG from TI5 to Frankfurt major had variables A, B, C, ..., Z all modified. So to pin it on RTZ+Sumail you need to have arguments specific to that. You simply haven't done so or even tried. I understand that you can't make up your mind who says what, and more busy trying to have a discussion with yourself, ultimately wasting everyones time. "And when you say their RTZ+Sumail isn't good". Not sure I said that, because I am pretty sure I didn't say that. It's pretty clear that you're saying EG got worse with the return of RTZ and implied that the RTZ+Sumail combination was what caused it. That you can't actually defend the point with anything resembling an argument outside of being salty at me is enough though. I am sure you can see there is a difference between, "RTZ+Sumail isn't good" and "it got worse.". Well, it should. And now you try to reconstruct something that has been pointed out, and yet you try to figure out what was actually said, when it is black on white. It did. It was meant as an upgrade, and wasn't. On paper it should have been an upgrade, but it never worked optimally. But I have written this many times, and you misquote me on end.When this becomes you wanting me to indulge in your own narrative, that you project onto me, it is no longer me you are trying to discuss with, but some idea in your head. When you changing your narrative, to amend your faults, and still get it wrong, it becomes an endless stream of trying to point out your glaring errors that distort a conversation from the get go, only to continue, and continue from an idea I am at fault here. If you watch games like you read, I am not surprised you see nothing. I have defended my point even before you entered. No one cares to pursuade you to see what you can't see, and start off by saying it isn't true, only to end, you don't know either way. Repeating something over and over and never supporting it with few real arguments. "I'm really good at watching games" isn't saying anything. And if you're having a hard time writing maybe stick to shorter English sentences? And here I thought it was you, that kept on making the reading and quoting mistakes, because that is what evidence shows... It is all well, I didn't just say, "I am really good at watching games", isn't it. When you stumble in your shoelaces 7 times, while trying to have a conversation, where you are stuck with no clue anyway, you are not really worth the effort of explaining something, that has been explained. Sorry. Someone should have told you commas are not your friend. Your posts are getting more non sequitur by the post. Don't worry about it though I'm really good at making forum posts so don't feel too bad. On to a real topic though, the PPD move is pretty strange. He almost certainly didn't want to play with Artour again which probably affected his decision but it's really hard to say which direction the cause and effect went. Maybe he just lost the fire since he's already reached the top and he wouldn't have Fear anymore as a counterbalance?
You're both pretty amazing at misinterpreting each other. Or maybe you just like not trying to understand each other.
|
Was it an unfounded rumor that the EG players essentially voted to kick PPD?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
