|
Austria24420 Posts
On June 21 2017 19:37 ParksonVN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 18:58 Olli wrote:
You're all over the place. I didn't say Zest was better than INnoVation in 2015, just that he was better early in the year. I never compared Zest's IEM Final (Toronto, I assume?) to INnoVation's GSL.
INnoVation's tournament results overall are not better than Zest's. They were in the second half of 2015, if you're trying to argue that, which I never disputed in the first place.
Koreans don't value GSL higher than BlizzCon, I don't know where you got that idea but it's wrong. And you conveniently ignoring all the other Korean championships Zest won (KeSPA Cup, GSL Global Championship, GSL Cataclysm) says it all, really. You're grasping at straws. Zest was better than Inno in the first half of 2015 but Inno was also better in second half, look at the whole year Inno was better since GSL > IEM, do I need to emphasize that ? All i'm saying is that in terms of tournament results in the whole career, Inno is better than Zest: Tournament ranked by prestige 2 GSL vs 2 GSL : draw 1 SSL vs 0 : Inno wins WCS final vs IEM final : draw IEM Gyeonggi = Kespa cup: draw IEM gamescom = GSL Global Championship : Zest wins And no matter Blizzcon is bigger than GSL or not, neither of them has ever won it, however: both of them qualified for 3 times and Inno made it to quarter final 2 times while Zest got knocked out all the times (one of them was being 0-3d by Inno) and moreover Inno will be most likely make it to Blizzcon 2017 while Zest ... not so much chance considered his current form.  . Overall Inno's performance in Blizzcon is better. On other hand, you can underestimate Inno's SSL (indeed it was less competitive than the previous ones) but it's still a Starleague, and none of Zest's non-GSL titles is able to compare with it. btw Cataclysm is not even a premier tournament (Zest only won $2k5 then)
You've conveniently ignored everything that doesn't suit your arguments again. Compare high placements in Korean tournaments and you'll see that Zest has a lot more, Cataclysm is in fact a tournament, Zest's IEM WC win is more impressive than INnoVation's WCS Final, and INnoVation didn't even qualify for BlizzCon in 2016 while Zest made the Ro8 there.
And you've also conveniently ignored the consistency and continued dominance factor, which leans quite heavily in Zest's favor. So I'll stop discussing here because I obviously can't convince you of anything. You'll continue believing that INnoVation is better, and I'll continue to think you're absolutely wrong.
|
I don't think Zest's IEM win is more impressive than Inno's WCS win.
Zest beat Hydra, Inno, Trap and Bbyong.
Inno beat Revival, RorO, aLive, Mvp and sOs
|
On June 21 2017 18:15 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 18:11 Charoisaur wrote:
I think we had this discussion already but I absolutely don't see why SSL should count less than a GSL.
Inno playing only 1 knockout-game was due to the fact that he was so dominant in the tournament that he was directly seeded to the finals. Do you really want to discredit him for that?
You think his win would be worth more had he barely got to the playoffs and then won 2 bo5s before winning the finals?
Yes. That's exactly what people value in GSL - you have to prepare for every single group or match or you're out. SSL put no immediate pressure on anyone. I don't discredit him for being excellent all tournament long - he was, and deservedly won the tournament - but I don't value the tournament anywhere near as highly as even a knockout weekender in Korea. Gyeonggi was more impressive to me.
If anything it should be the other way around. I keep seeing people diss the prestige of this SSL and I just don't get.
I can kind of see the angle of there potentially being more of an incentive to bring your A-game due to the danger of an immediate knockout every round. On the other hand, the disadvantage to that with regards to prestige is that it's susceptible to having normally great players going out early by simply having an off-day, being sick/tired, difficulty adapting to a recent balance patch or new meta trend, having to juggle other leagues and tournaments, or even equipment malfunctioning.
Having an ongoing round-robin ensures a greater chance of the better players making playoffs. Additionally, there's preparation going into every weekly encounter as the opponent is known in advance. In gsl there's always a couple of players who say they don't prepare for all possible scenarios of their group stage and instead focus preparation on particular races/opponents. Furthermore, you have to also account for the rigorous qualifier and challenger stages to even get into premiere. Even in the inagural season this SSL got a lot of the Korean heavy-hitters in premiere with a few unexpected slumps (Zest). GSL currently has bare-bones qualifiers, no code A, and numerous lopsided ro32 groups with clear favorites.
Look at Ryung as an example. Back to back deep runs in the gsl on the back of great TvT and bracket luck of having easy Protoss and Zerg opponents. Meanwhile, in SSL he was eaten alive.
==
A bit more on topic. I think Bogus holds a firm advantage over Zest at this point in time. They've always gone back and forth as the best Kespa players to come over (soO is also making a strong case), but it's pretty clear now. Zest had a stronger peak for his 2014 and a couple of big wins thereafter, but Bogus has won more spread over time and has far greater longevity in general. He is the only player I can think of that has been truly top-tier in every iteration of sc2. It's a shame PartinG, Life and Taeja can't match him now that they've left the game =/
|
Austria24420 Posts
Yeah, I'd take Zest's IEM over INno's WCS. Hydra was good, INnoVation is INnoVation, Bbyong just had a sick tournament run and played fantastically, and Trap did so as well, while also being one of the best PvPers in Korea.
Meanwhile INnoVation at WCS played Revival who was never very good, RorO who then was well past his GSL winning form and just previously got 3-0d by INnoVation in GSL, aLive was really weak then, Mvp's wrists were broken, but he was a good player still, and sOs just rolled over and died because he didn't know how to play against Terran.
I'd have the IEM WC over that WCS Finals personally.
|
On June 21 2017 19:53 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 19:37 ParksonVN wrote:On June 21 2017 18:58 Olli wrote:
You're all over the place. I didn't say Zest was better than INnoVation in 2015, just that he was better early in the year. I never compared Zest's IEM Final (Toronto, I assume?) to INnoVation's GSL.
INnoVation's tournament results overall are not better than Zest's. They were in the second half of 2015, if you're trying to argue that, which I never disputed in the first place.
Koreans don't value GSL higher than BlizzCon, I don't know where you got that idea but it's wrong. And you conveniently ignoring all the other Korean championships Zest won (KeSPA Cup, GSL Global Championship, GSL Cataclysm) says it all, really. You're grasping at straws. Zest was better than Inno in the first half of 2015 but Inno was also better in second half, look at the whole year Inno was better since GSL > IEM, do I need to emphasize that ? All i'm saying is that in terms of tournament results in the whole career, Inno is better than Zest: Tournament ranked by prestige 2 GSL vs 2 GSL : draw 1 SSL vs 0 : Inno wins WCS final vs IEM final : draw IEM Gyeonggi = Kespa cup: draw IEM gamescom = GSL Global Championship : Zest wins And no matter Blizzcon is bigger than GSL or not, neither of them has ever won it, however: both of them qualified for 3 times and Inno made it to quarter final 2 times while Zest got knocked out all the times (one of them was being 0-3d by Inno) and moreover Inno will be most likely make it to Blizzcon 2017 while Zest ... not so much chance considered his current form. . Overall Inno's performance in Blizzcon is better. On other hand, you can underestimate Inno's SSL (indeed it was less competitive than the previous ones) but it's still a Starleague, and none of Zest's non-GSL titles is able to compare with it. btw Cataclysm is not even a premier tournament (Zest only won $2k5 then) You've conveniently ignored everything that doesn't suit your arguments again. Compare high placements in Korean tournaments and you'll see that Zest has a lot more, Cataclysm is in fact a tournament, Zest's IEM WC win is more impressive than INnoVation's WCS Final, and INnoVation didn't even qualify for BlizzCon in 2016 while Zest made the Ro8 there. And you've also conveniently ignored the consistency and continued dominance factor, which leans quite heavily in Zest's favor. So I'll stop discussing here because I obviously can't convince you of anything. You'll continue believing that INnoVation is better, and I'll continue to think you're absolutely wrong.
-Cataclysm is unarguable a minor tournament with very small prize pool and no WCS point added.
-WCS final vs IEM final is debatable. Yes, I made a mistake, Zest actually got into ro8 Blizzcon 2016 while Inno didn't qualify, but Zest also didn't qualify Blizzcon 2013 => Inno with 2 times in ro8 is still slightly better.
-I don't see consistency and continued dominance factor of your argument, Inno has been always in the top 5 players since 2013, except 2016. While Zest was top for just 3 years (2014-2016). Everyone can see that Inno is much more consistent.
And one important factor is the current form, Inno is still on top at the moment while Zest is not even considered tier 1 player. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-tournaments/522970-10000-game-land-invitational
|
Austria24420 Posts
"Everyone can see..." is not an argument. So I'll stop arguing.
|
On June 21 2017 20:07 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2017 18:15 Olli wrote:On June 21 2017 18:11 Charoisaur wrote:
I think we had this discussion already but I absolutely don't see why SSL should count less than a GSL.
Inno playing only 1 knockout-game was due to the fact that he was so dominant in the tournament that he was directly seeded to the finals. Do you really want to discredit him for that?
You think his win would be worth more had he barely got to the playoffs and then won 2 bo5s before winning the finals?
Yes. That's exactly what people value in GSL - you have to prepare for every single group or match or you're out. SSL put no immediate pressure on anyone. I don't discredit him for being excellent all tournament long - he was, and deservedly won the tournament - but I don't value the tournament anywhere near as highly as even a knockout weekender in Korea. Gyeonggi was more impressive to me. If anything it should be the other way around. I keep seeing people diss the prestige of this SSL and I just don't get. I can kind of see the angle of there potentially being more of an incentive to bring your A-game due to the danger of an immediate knockout every round. On the other hand, the disadvantage to that with regards to prestige is that it's susceptible to having normally great players going out early by simply having an off-day, being sick/tired, difficulty adapting to a recent balance patch or new meta trend, having to juggle other leagues and tournaments, or even equipment malfunctioning. Having an ongoing round-robin ensures a greater chance of the better players making playoffs. Additionally, there's preparation going into every weekly encounter as the opponent is known in advance. In gsl there's always a couple of players who say they don't prepare for all possible scenarios of their group stage and instead focus preparation on particular races/opponents. Furthermore, you have to also account for the rigorous qualifier and challenger stages to even get into premiere. Even in the inagural season this SSL got a lot of the Korean heavy-hitters in premiere with a few unexpected slumps (Zest). GSL currently has bare-bones qualifiers, no code A, and numerous lopsided ro32 groups with clear favorites. Look at Ryung as an example. Back to back deep runs in the gsl on the back of great TvT and bracket luck of having easy Protoss and Zerg opponents. Meanwhile, in SSL he was eaten alive. == A bit more on topic. I think Bogus holds a firm advantage over Zest at this point in time. They've always gone back and forth as the best Kespa players to come over (soO is also making a strong case), but it's pretty clear now. Zest had a stronger peak for his 2014 and a couple of big wins thereafter, but Bogus has won more spread over time and has far greater longevity in general. He is the only player I can think of that has been truly top-tier in every iteration of sc2. It's a shame PartinG, Life and Taeja can't match him now that they've left the game =/
This post here pretty much said everything I was going to. The people downplaying SSL in general and INnoVation's recent victory seem to have conveniently forgotten that Inno had a better record through SSL Season 1 than Stats did in GSL Season 1 (20-8 vs 20-11). That or they just didn't bother to check, and are careless as well as stupid. I could go on, but FrostedMiniWheats has done a great job already with that.
With regard to comparing INnoVation and Zest, I also agree with the above post. The two of them have been in pretty close competition throughout both of their careers, and at any given time one only has to look at which of them is doing better to see who has the edge.
Chronologically:
2013: INnoVation
2014: Zest
2015: First Zest, then Inno
2016: Zest
2017: Inno
Comparing their titles (as has been done multiple times in the preceding posts) reveals similar results. Since LotV, Zest was ahead after winning GSL, and Inno has now taken the lead after winning SSL. Simply looking at their trophy cabinets gives an easy answer: Zest has 5 trophies to Inno's 6, and of those, 2 Starleagues to Inno's 3.
Obviously enough, INnoVation is currently ahead of Zest.
|
Austria24420 Posts
Look, since all you're doing is comparing titles without context or any other factors taken into account, or any other high placements except titles accounted for (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest), as well as completely ignoring consistency (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest) or domination (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest), or evolution of the metagame (which is hard to measure properly, but Zest wins that too), this entire discussion is silly. And that's not even taking into account the real skill of these players within the game, because nobody will ever agree on that - but Zest in 2014 and 2016 reached heights that INnoVation never did after his 4 months of dominance in 2013, arguably even then. Not in 2015, not now. But let's leave that out because we can't measure that reasonably.
Your problem is that you selectively look at numbers, I assume to fit your point of view, and simplify them to beyond recognition.
Chronologically:
2013: INnoVation
2014: Zest
2015: First Zest, then Inno
2016: Zest
2017: Inno
This is exactly why arguing this is pointless. Why don't you have a closer look at their results during these time-frames (which I posted and broke down in a post earlier) and then tell me who exactly placed higher consistently, and when, as well as how long, INnoVation's dominance and Zest's was. Because to put "2014: Zest" and "2017: Inno" in the same terms of importance is incredibly stupid. Zest was the best player in the world in 2014 and had the most impressive year of anyone since Mvp's 2011 - possibly better if you want to get into skill level arguments. INnoVation has never done anything comparable, and he's certainly nowhere near it in 2017. INnoVation's highest peak came in 2013, lasted 4 months and netted him one tournament victory, as well as a GSL silver medal. Zest's peak came in 2014, lasted all year and earned him three individual titles in Korea, as well as a second place at a very stacked IEM Toronto, the Asia qualifier for which he won.
To just put "2016: Zest" is incredibly disingenuous as well, considering INnoVation did absolutely nothing that entire year and I mean as little as Zest in 2013, while Zest was the best player in the world again for half a year. That's just as dumb as putting "2013: INnoVation" there, since we both know that he massively outdid Zest that year. That's why you have to take dominance and consistency into account, otherwise you end up jumping to stupid and incomplete conclusions.
"Obviously enough" your criteria are either nonexistent or terrible.
|
United Kingdom31935 Posts
Zest sucks and is a patch toss. #Free SackOfWetMice.
In all seriousness fun discussion to read.
|
On June 22 2017 04:07 Olli wrote:
Look, since all you're doing is comparing titles without context or any other factors taken into account, or any other high placements except titles accounted for (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest), as well as completely ignoring consistency (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest) or domination (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest), or evolution of the metagame (which is hard to measure properly, but Zest wins that too), this entire discussion is silly. And that's not even taking into account the real skill of these players within the game, because nobody will ever agree on that - but Zest in 2014 and 2016 reached heights that INnoVation never did after his 4 months of dominance in 2013, arguably even then. Not in 2015, not now. But let's leave that out because we can't measure that reasonably.
Disagree with pretty much everything. For high placements Inno beats Zest for sure. Inno has 1 additional GSL final + 2 more semifinals + 2nd at a DH. Zest just has a GSL semifinals a hot6ix cup semifinal and a 2nd place at an IEM.
If we add ro8s to that I'm not sure because liquipedia doesn't track that but I remember at least 3 ro8 exits for Inno (vs Life vs Symbol and vs Byul) so Zest probably doesn't have a big lead there if at all.
Consistency I'd say is even. Both have incredibly dominant periods followed up by "slumps" for most of their career.
Evolution of the metagame is hard to measure but both had enormous contributions to how their race is played so I don't think you can pick a clear winner.
|
Look, since all you're doing is comparing titles without context or any other factors taken into account, or any other placements except titles accounted for (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest), as well as completely ignoring consistency (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest) or domination (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest), or evolution of the metagame (which is hard to measure properly, but Zest wins that too), this entire discussion is silly.
"Context" simply means bias as long as we have enough data. Results are all that matters but yes we should look at the big picture and not just titles (that also means "consistency" btw). Evolution of the metagame isn't measurable at all which is why we should neglect it completely. (at least you say it is "hard to measure")
So let's look at Starleague results (ro8 or better)
ro8: 5x Zest (maybe 6x if we count the 10th place in SSL) and 4x Innovation
ro4: 1x Zest and 2x Innovation
2nd: 0x Zest and 1x Innovation
1st: 2x Zest and 3x Innovation
So overall Innovation is ahead here.
Other korean achievements:
ro8: 1x Zest and 1x Innovation
ro4: 1x Zest and 0x Innovation
2nd: both none
1st: 2x Zest and 0x Innovation
Zest ahead here
"Bigger" Weekend tournaments (IEM, Blizzcon, Dreamhack, things like that)
ro8: 2x Zest and 6x Innovation
ro4: 0x Zest and 3x Innovation
2nd: 2x Zest and 1x Innovation
1st: 1x Zest and 3x Innovation
Innovation ahead here
Teamleague results
Innovation won proleague twice, Zest once. Innovation also won GSTL and 2x Acer teamstory cup
If we only look at proleague stats Zest is 101–65 (60.84%) and Innovation 75–42 (64.10%)
Overall Innovation is ahead here.
Conclusion
If we look at all these results it seems obvious that Innovation is in front of Zest. I might have missed things though/made some errors, this was a fairly fast liquipedia research. Still, right now Innovation is ahead for sure.
|
Austria24420 Posts
And again you've ignored context. Context is not bias, it's what actually makes numbers mean anything. Context includes factors like opponents played, form of opponents played, overall skill level, consistency, domination, etc.etc. To think that that constitutes bias is stupid. To argue that "looking at the big picture" means consistency is stupid. INnoVation won a GSL in 2015, then fell off the map completely and won IEM Gyeonggi when 2017 began. He did absolutely nothing in between. Nothing at all. Looking at your "big picture", you won't find these slumps included. You won't find a measurement of how impressive or how bad certain periods of time were by either player, because raw numbers don't tell you that.
You also argue that INnoVation is ahead because he came out 2 to 1 it seems, which means you're putting Zest's "other KR tournaments" equal to INnoVation's foreign tournaments, which they're not. Context matters.
As for Teamleague results, the only one that counts in a direct comparison is Proleague, since Zest never had a chance to participate in ATC. You can't hold that against him.
And finally, you can't just ignore that INnoVation had periods where he was essentially nonexistent (most of 2014, early 2015 and especially all of 2016) while Zest was the much more consistent player. That matters. You can't just ignore Zest's longer peak and his much better results during it. That matters. And it isn't bias, it's what you call reasonable criteria. Numbers are not all that matters, and if that's what you think then there's no discussion to be had.
Oh by the way, if you actually count INnoVation's IEM at Gamescom and don't count Zest's Cataclysm Tournament then I don't know what to tell you. Zest had far, far, far stronger opponents. It was a GSL weekender, only that it had little prize money, no WCS points and a new patch - which everyone played on, leveling the playing field for everyone.
|
Olli pls, both players have enough results in general to assume that the overall "difficulty" in each category is somewhat similar. Trying to nitpick that player A had to beat player X,Y and Z while player B "only" had to beat player Q,W and U while having the same result IS biased. No system is perfect, but looking at the results is way better than trying to contextualize every single player and result (which you would need to do to make it work)
That you even include "form of opponents played" is just showing how hard you would go to cherrypick. How in the world would you even try to make that work? It might be doable if we looked at a very sophisticated elo system and then rated it based on matchups for each tournament run. But i am 100% sure that your (or stuchiu's) eye test for these things is way more biased than that (mine would be as well btw)
So yes, looking at results and just that is way, way better because it is consistent. As i said before, we kinda have enough results/data to kinda assume that it balances itself out in the end (aka one time you get a few "easier" opponents for a ro8, the other time harder ones, etc)
Consistency IS results, what else would it be. Every single player in existence has weeks/months where he doesn't play well and that shows in results, it's completely irrelevant if it's a longer period for one player or not. At the end of the day we simply have to look at the achievements of the players. I did that in my last post. Ofc you don't like the end result, personally i care more for Zest as well. But that doesn't matter here, Innovation is clearly in the lead.
Numbers are not all that matters, and if that's what you think then there's no discussion to be had.
Well you asked for "Why don't you have a closer look at their results during these time-frames" and i did exactly that. Innovation has better results overall. Zest might have a period of dominance which Innovation maybe doesn't have. But why does that matter more than simply all the results of their careers? It doesn't. You say other people ignore facts/data/arguments, but in this case it is actually you ignoring my post. "Numbers don't mean everything". Well you are right, the context is given by the different categories though and the fact that Zest and Innovation played in the same eras.
|
On June 22 2017 04:07 Olli wrote:Look, since all you're doing is comparing titles without context or any other factors taken into account, or any other high placements except titles accounted for (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest), as well as completely ignoring consistency (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest) or domination (which INnoVation lacks compared to Zest), or evolution of the metagame (which is hard to measure properly, but Zest wins that too), this entire discussion is silly. And that's not even taking into account the real skill of these players within the game, because nobody will ever agree on that - but Zest in 2014 and 2016 reached heights that INnoVation never did after his 4 months of dominance in 2013, arguably even then. Not in 2015, not now. But let's leave that out because we can't measure that reasonably. Your problem is that you selectively look at numbers, I assume to fit your point of view, and simplify them to beyond recognition. Show nested quote +Chronologically:
2013: INnoVation
2014: Zest
2015: First Zest, then Inno
2016: Zest
2017: Inno This is exactly why arguing this is pointless. Why don't you have a closer look at their results during these time-frames (which I posted and broke down in a post earlier) and then tell me who exactly placed higher consistently, and when, as well as how long, INnoVation's dominance and Zest's was. Because to put "2014: Zest" and "2017: Inno" in the same terms of importance is incredibly stupid. Zest was the best player in the world in 2014 and had the most impressive year of anyone since Mvp's 2011 - possibly better if you want to get into skill level arguments. INnoVation has never done anything comparable, and he's certainly nowhere near it in 2017. INnoVation's highest peak came in 2013, lasted 4 months and netted him one tournament victory, as well as a GSL silver medal. Zest's peak came in 2014, lasted all year and earned him three individual titles in Korea, as well as a second place at a very stacked IEM Toronto, the Asia qualifier for which he won. To just put "2016: Zest" is incredibly disingenuous as well, considering INnoVation did absolutely nothing that entire year and I mean as little as Zest in 2013, while Zest was the best player in the world again for half a year. That's just as dumb as putting "2013: INnoVation" there, since we both know that he massively outdid Zest that year. That's why you have to take dominance and consistency into account, otherwise you end up jumping to stupid and incomplete conclusions. "Obviously enough" your criteria are either nonexistent or terrible.
Oh, for fuck's sake.
I will make this fast since I am at work and have wasted too much time as it is on TL (thank god Maven takes forever to build).
I was indeed comparing titles without context, selectively, and simplifying them (beyond recognition is a stretch). All that I freely confess to, and congratulations for your keen eye in picking up on that. But apparently the reasoning behind such a course of action has escaped you, and it is thus: "context, "consistency, "evolution," "domination" and everything else you were complaining about is completely and utterly subjective. Titles and quantifiable, placements are quantifiable, (but only to some extent mind you) and just about everything else can only be qualitatively compared, if at all.
You and I can argue about whose peak was more impressive, whose consistency was more prolonged, whose skill was more refined, until the heat death of the universe and nothing that either of us can possibly say will turn these subjective interpretations of specific circumstances into objective criteria (There isn't even a universally-accepted definition of "skill," let alone an objective way to measure it).
Therefore, the only thing that we can do is simplify the conversation to the few (comparatively) objective aspects and try to derive a conclusion from those without bringing subjectivity to the table at all. Which was what I was trying to do, and what I assumed you were intelligent enough to pick up on.
And as far as being disingenuous goes, if you know it and I know, there clearly there is fuck-all reason to waste everyone's time by rehashing the same clarifications already posted by other people every single time we make a new post, yeah? Some things go without saying.
The biggest problem with your position is not your argument. You have good points and good evidence, and you articulate them well. But the way in which you go about making it, which is to say, the myopic and monofaceted stance you take on thoroughly subjective interpretations of utterly subjective material, undermines the integrity of your otherwise sound argument.
This is, not incidentally, the same issue I called you on in another thread. Treating your own perspective as the sole "correct" perspective is all well and good within the domain of formal mathematics, when said perspective can actually be unequivocally substantiated through formal logic. Needless to say, TL is well outside that domain and applying that same adamant insistence on correctness here only erodes your own credibility.
TL;DR, you can't prove yourself "right" here (nobody can), and acting as though you already have makes you come across like a condescending asshat.
|
Austria24420 Posts
Consistency is not results overall. Absolutely not. Results overall completely ignore when and how they happened. It's that exact kind of logic that makes you unable to understand why TaeJa was so good. It's that exact kind of logic that completely ignores that he put together winning records against almost all of the best players in the world because "lol only foreign tournaments, Taeja is nowhere near the best". It's incredibly stupid and narrow-minded. TaeJa consistently wrecked the best of the best in and outside of Korea, he just never won a title in Korea. Now, it's fair to value that however you see fit - but you get the point.
You SHOULD include players beaten, and you SHOULD have to value tournaments differently according to it. Zest's 2014 GSL is one of the hardest tournament runs you'll ever see. To reduce everything to the same importance (wrongly, even, because Zest's "other" Korean tournaments FAR, FAR outweigh INnoVation's lead in the foreign tournament department - and even that is stupid because Zest's one foreign championship at IEM WC was bigger than any of INnoVation's, which again isn't represented in your list). And you SHOULD include factors such as dominance and how well they kept up their results for stretches of time. It's easy to pop in every now when the meta favors your race or playstyle and win a tournament. sOs has made a living off the ability to figure out the game just in time to win big tournaments and then disappear into mediocrity again. And INnoVation has done similarly. To completely ignore all that is stupid and little else.
As for the post above - perhaps you shouldn't throw around phrases like "INnoVation is obviously in the lead, then". Because I've just shown you through multiple arguments that it is not, in fact, obvious. And to suggest I'm basing this on subjective information entirely is incorrect. You can analyze periods of dominance and consistency without ever making a subjective judgment. All you really need to do for that is look at the two timelines I posted earlier, and compare them. When and for how long was INnoVation posting good results and what were they? Who else posted good results around that time? Did INnoVation play against them? How did he do? Same for Zest. Strength of opponents is not purely a subjective matter, it's something that can be measured statistically, albeit only to some degree. Dominance and consistency are components that certainly can be measured, and I have broken them down in an earlier post that has conveniently been ignored.
|
On June 22 2017 05:52 Olli wrote:
Zest's 2016 GSL run was harder than any run INnoVation ever had.
I don't see how beating Journey, retired TaeJa, Cure, slumping soO, retired TaeJa again, Dear and TY is more impressive than beating Flash, Curious, Flash again, Gumiho, Zest , Maru and Byul.
But no quality of players beaten shouldn't be counted because you can't quantify that.
Let's take for example Neeb's Kespa Cup victory. Many people say his run was easy because he didn't play vs a lot of big names. What people forget in those cases is that the players he beat may have very well been better players at that tournament than players who have a "bigger" name.
Pet took out herO and also beat Dark in the qualifiers. Trap took out TY and Solar. So just because Pet and Trap don't have as much achievements as other players doesn't mean at all they were worse players at that specific time.
looking only at the names of the players and trying to determine from that how impressive the tournament run is is stupid in a tournament where ALL players have the opporturnity to play in and qualify for.
|
If you have a lot of good results throughout your career then you are consistent. Ofc if we look at specific timeframes in that career the results might not be consistent there. But why does that particular timeframe matter more than the overall career? There really is no good reason for that.
I understand why Taeja was good, he simply is overhyped. This isn't about Taeja though.
You SHOULD include players beaten, and you SHOULD have to value tournaments differently according to it.
Yes in a perfect world you should do that. But not through some biased eye test/subjective opinion, it should be done through a sophisticated elo system. If you do that i am totally fine with it and yes if it is done well enough it is superior to simply looking at the results/stats. I simply don't think that anybody actually does/did it well enough, which is why i would rather not look at it through this biased/subjective pov.
And you SHOULD include factors such as dominance and how well they kept up their results for stretches of time
Why? We can argue about this point i guess. Why is it important to dominate a scene for x weeks/months? The tournaments results are already part of my criteria, this only adds that you do it in a specific timeframe. Why exactly do you put so much weight on that?
sOs has made a living off the ability to figure out the game just in time to win big tournaments and then disappear into mediocrity again. And INnoVation has done similarly
http://aligulac.com/records/hof/
While this isn't perfect by any means, it at least shows how absurd your statement is.
|
On June 22 2017 05:52 Olli wrote:
Consistency is not results overall. Absolutely not. Results overall completely ignore when and how they happened. It's that exact kind of logic that makes you unable to understand why TaeJa was so good. It's that exact kind of logic that completely ignores that he put together winning records against almost all of the best players in the world because "lol only foreign tournaments, Taeja is nowhere near the best". It's incredibly stupid and narrow-minded. TaeJa consistently wrecked the best of the best in and outside of Korea, he just never won a title in Korea. Now, it's fair to value that however you see fit - but you get the point.
You SHOULD include players beaten, and you SHOULD have to value tournaments differently according to it. Zest's 2014 GSL is one of the hardest tournament runs you'll ever see. To reduce everything to the same importance (wrongly, even, because Zest's "other" Korean tournaments FAR, FAR outweigh INnoVation's lead in the foreign tournament department - and even that is stupid because Zest's one foreign championship at IEM WC was bigger than any of INnoVation's, which again isn't represented in your list). And you SHOULD include factors such as dominance and how well they kept up their results for stretches of time. It's easy to pop in every now when the meta favors your race or playstyle and win a tournament. sOs has made a living off the ability to figure out the game just in time to win big tournaments and then disappear into mediocrity again. And INnoVation has done similarly. To completely ignore all that is stupid and little else.
As for the post above - perhaps you shouldn't throw around phrases like "INnoVation is obviously in the lead, then". Because I've just shown you through multiple arguments that it is not, in fact, obvious. And to suggest I'm basing this on subjective information entirely is incorrect. You can analyze periods of dominance and consistency without ever making a subjective judgment. All you really need to do for that is look at the two timelines I posted earlier, and compare them. When and for how long was INnoVation posting good results and what were they? Who else posted good results around that time? Did INnoVation play against them? How did he do? Same for Zest. Strength of opponents is not purely a subjective matter, it's something that can be measured statistically, albeit only to some degree. Dominance and consistency are components that certainly can be measured, and I have broken them down in an earlier post that has conveniently been ignored.
The subjectivity in it comes down to definitions.
When and for how long was INnoVation posting good results and what were they?
What is a quantifiable definition of "good?" and "how long?" What was the frequency of tournaments relative to calendar time?
Who else posted good results around that time?
Again, what constitutes "good" and how do we quantifiably generalize this definition across different matchups and races, since it is universally acknowledged that player skill varies across matchup?
Did INnoVation play against them? How did he do? Same for Zest.
But INnoVation and Zest peaked at different times while playing different races in different metas, and played different people at different times in different tournaments under different conditions. How do you isolate the variables?
What is "better?" What is "skill?" What if Player X didn't sleep well and skipped breakfast? What if Player Y is jetlagged and took aspirin? Do we have to factor in these variables? What if Player Y has practiced only a single MU against a specific opponent while Player Z has not practiced at all?
We have no way of measuring, and in most cases, no way of even knowing, a great many variables that all have a direct impact on how the game is played. A Starcraft game is not a closed environment. Your "objectivity" comes from applying your own subjective definitions and then treating them objectively--very different than a truly empirical test of isolated variables within a closed system.
In the end, the proof for your lack of objectivity is the fact that we are even arguing in the first place. Nobody can argue with a proof. There is no single correct answer and there never will be.
|
Austria24420 Posts
On June 22 2017 06:15 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 05:52 Olli wrote:
Consistency is not results overall. Absolutely not. Results overall completely ignore when and how they happened. It's that exact kind of logic that makes you unable to understand why TaeJa was so good. It's that exact kind of logic that completely ignores that he put together winning records against almost all of the best players in the world because "lol only foreign tournaments, Taeja is nowhere near the best". It's incredibly stupid and narrow-minded. TaeJa consistently wrecked the best of the best in and outside of Korea, he just never won a title in Korea. Now, it's fair to value that however you see fit - but you get the point.
You SHOULD include players beaten, and you SHOULD have to value tournaments differently according to it. Zest's 2014 GSL is one of the hardest tournament runs you'll ever see. To reduce everything to the same importance (wrongly, even, because Zest's "other" Korean tournaments FAR, FAR outweigh INnoVation's lead in the foreign tournament department - and even that is stupid because Zest's one foreign championship at IEM WC was bigger than any of INnoVation's, which again isn't represented in your list). And you SHOULD include factors such as dominance and how well they kept up their results for stretches of time. It's easy to pop in every now when the meta favors your race or playstyle and win a tournament. sOs has made a living off the ability to figure out the game just in time to win big tournaments and then disappear into mediocrity again. And INnoVation has done similarly. To completely ignore all that is stupid and little else.
As for the post above - perhaps you shouldn't throw around phrases like "INnoVation is obviously in the lead, then". Because I've just shown you through multiple arguments that it is not, in fact, obvious. And to suggest I'm basing this on subjective information entirely is incorrect. You can analyze periods of dominance and consistency without ever making a subjective judgment. All you really need to do for that is look at the two timelines I posted earlier, and compare them. When and for how long was INnoVation posting good results and what were they? Who else posted good results around that time? Did INnoVation play against them? How did he do? Same for Zest. Strength of opponents is not purely a subjective matter, it's something that can be measured statistically, albeit only to some degree. Dominance and consistency are components that certainly can be measured, and I have broken them down in an earlier post that has conveniently been ignored. The subjectivity in it comes down to definitions. Show nested quote +When and for how long was INnoVation posting good results and what were they? What is a quantifiable definition of "good?" and "how long?" What was the frequency of tournaments relative to calendar time? Again, what constitutes "good" and how do we quantifiably generalize this definition across different matchups, since it is universally acknowledged that player skill varies across matchup? But INnoVation and Zest peaked at different times and played different people at different times in different tournaments under different conditions. How do you isolate the variables? What is "better?" What is "skill?" What if Player X didn't sleep well and skipped breakfast? What if Player Y is jetlagged and took aspirin? Do we have to factor in these variables? What if Player Y has practiced only a single MU against a specific opponent while Player Z has not practiced at all? We have no way of measuring, and in most cases, no way of even knowing, a great many variables that all have a direct impact on how the game is played. A Starcraft game is not a closed environment. Your "objectivity" comes from applying your own subjective definitions and then treating them objectively--very different than a truly empirical test of isolated variables within a closed system.
In the end, the proof for your lack of objectivity is the fact that you are arguing in the first place. There is no single correct answer and there never will be.
That last part is hilarious, coming from someone who also said this:
Obviously enough, INnoVation is currently ahead of Zest.
No, it isn't obvious. That's why I'm arguing.
Dominance is crucial because it tells you how good someone was when all eyes were on them for long periods of time. Zest was the guy to beat in 2014, which is why everyone studied him and everyone would naturally prepare for him wherever he went. Beating Zest was integral to winning any championship. That's when people put in extra effort to figure out your weaknesses, play against your specific style, etc. It didn't happen with Zest in 2014, he never got "figured out". It did happen with INnoVation to some degree when everyone began roach/bane busting him because they saw he was weak against it. Being able to stave off competition once you're in the spotlight and staying ahead of everyone else is different to winning a tournament, then disappearing and popping up again later.
|
On June 22 2017 06:22 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2017 06:15 pvsnp wrote:On June 22 2017 05:52 Olli wrote:
Consistency is not results overall. Absolutely not. Results overall completely ignore when and how they happened. It's that exact kind of logic that makes you unable to understand why TaeJa was so good. It's that exact kind of logic that completely ignores that he put together winning records against almost all of the best players in the world because "lol only foreign tournaments, Taeja is nowhere near the best". It's incredibly stupid and narrow-minded. TaeJa consistently wrecked the best of the best in and outside of Korea, he just never won a title in Korea. Now, it's fair to value that however you see fit - but you get the point.
You SHOULD include players beaten, and you SHOULD have to value tournaments differently according to it. Zest's 2014 GSL is one of the hardest tournament runs you'll ever see. To reduce everything to the same importance (wrongly, even, because Zest's "other" Korean tournaments FAR, FAR outweigh INnoVation's lead in the foreign tournament department - and even that is stupid because Zest's one foreign championship at IEM WC was bigger than any of INnoVation's, which again isn't represented in your list). And you SHOULD include factors such as dominance and how well they kept up their results for stretches of time. It's easy to pop in every now when the meta favors your race or playstyle and win a tournament. sOs has made a living off the ability to figure out the game just in time to win big tournaments and then disappear into mediocrity again. And INnoVation has done similarly. To completely ignore all that is stupid and little else.
As for the post above - perhaps you shouldn't throw around phrases like "INnoVation is obviously in the lead, then". Because I've just shown you through multiple arguments that it is not, in fact, obvious. And to suggest I'm basing this on subjective information entirely is incorrect. You can analyze periods of dominance and consistency without ever making a subjective judgment. All you really need to do for that is look at the two timelines I posted earlier, and compare them. When and for how long was INnoVation posting good results and what were they? Who else posted good results around that time? Did INnoVation play against them? How did he do? Same for Zest. Strength of opponents is not purely a subjective matter, it's something that can be measured statistically, albeit only to some degree. Dominance and consistency are components that certainly can be measured, and I have broken them down in an earlier post that has conveniently been ignored. The subjectivity in it comes down to definitions. When and for how long was INnoVation posting good results and what were they? What is a quantifiable definition of "good?" and "how long?" What was the frequency of tournaments relative to calendar time? Who else posted good results around that time? Again, what constitutes "good" and how do we quantifiably generalize this definition across different matchups, since it is universally acknowledged that player skill varies across matchup? Did INnoVation play against them? How did he do? Same for Zest. But INnoVation and Zest peaked at different times and played different people at different times in different tournaments under different conditions. How do you isolate the variables? What is "better?" What is "skill?" What if Player X didn't sleep well and skipped breakfast? What if Player Y is jetlagged and took aspirin? Do we have to factor in these variables? What if Player Y has practiced only a single MU against a specific opponent while Player Z has not practiced at all? We have no way of measuring, and in most cases, no way of even knowing, a great many variables that all have a direct impact on how the game is played. A Starcraft game is not a closed environment. Your "objectivity" comes from applying your own subjective definitions and then treating them objectively--very different than a truly empirical test of isolated variables within a closed system.
In the end, the proof for your lack of objectivity is the fact that you are arguing in the first place. There is no single correct answer and there never will be. That last part is hilarious, coming from someone who also said this: No, it isn't obvious. That's why I'm arguing.
Nice taking my words out of context. I thought you didn't like it when I ignored context?
Hypocrisy is always so ironic.
But the larger irony is that this subjective argument is fast degenerating into subjective mudslinging. I'm happy to trade insults instead of points, but I doubt that will get anywhere either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
