The Elephant in the Room - Page 267

On February 13 2012 15:00 getSome[703] wrote:


Yes, having only 5 GSL championships as opposed to 12 will make winning it more meaningful.

On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote:
kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?"

or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)?

On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote:
kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?"

or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)?

On February 13 2012 14:55 Biggun69 wrote:


Well its 5 per year this year, so i guess winning a gsl championship will be more meaningful now?

On February 13 2012 07:24 Squeegy wrote:


They are bad players when compared to players like Flash. And not only to Flash but to players like Sea, players like every good A-teamer. They are, or were, at the same level as the top 300 of BW. That is the entire point. MVP was in that top 300. So was MC. So was MMA. There weren't 300 players better than them. There aren't 300 A-teamers. This is of course very obvious and clear to anyone who knows the context. But I guess it only shows that you don't, in which case you not being able to think of a context, well, that's not something to brag about. And you don't have to take my word for it. You can go search the BW ranking databases for yourself.

You also don't want to put in quotes something you made up yourself. Intrigue talked about potential to dominate. He was not saying everyone will (instantly) dominate. Also, I think the example that there is absence of proof of a bomb explosion in my room is proof of absence. Don't you think?

On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote:
kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?"

or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)?

On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote:
kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?"

or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)?

On February 13 2012 15:16 blade55555 wrote:


Best rts gamer would easily be Flash/Jaedong/Nada imo.

On February 13 2012 15:58 Acritter wrote:

If we're going to include "of all time", we definitely need to include Savior. However shitty a person he may have been, he was an absolutely fantastic player. I think Savior in his prime would even have had a solid chance of taking games off of Flash, if not an entire series. That's not something that can be said of every player, especially not 270 APM players.

Also, you should probably rank iloveoov over Nada.

On February 13 2012 15:08 Ribbon wrote:


In fairness, a lot of things shouldn't have counted last year. The Super Tournament, the open tournaments, and the Blizzard Cup were all major tournaments, but I don't consider any of them proper GSLs.

On February 13 2012 16:22 sluggaslamoo wrote:


Definitely Savior. The fact that Effort was the only one that could take down Flash in his prime in a grand final says a lot about Savior (Efforts coach was Savior).. And Flash was so outplayed in the last 3 games, even in proleague he used to just dismantle Flash with mind-games (but only Flash lol).

It sucks that Savior lost interest in BW so fast (oov mentioned it in an interview) causing his massive decline and eventually losing on purpose to get money. If SC2 came out earlier who knows what would have happened.

Although while I think Oov would do much better than Nada in SC2 because of his amazing intellectual capability (insane macro/strategy/very low apm), Nada's overall record is much better than Oov.

On February 13 2012 15:37 Big J wrote:


It's very obvious to me that there weren't 300 players better than MMA, MVP etc.
But there also weren't 300 players better than Forgg/Fin, Hyun and the countless names that are written in the OP, yet those are far from dominating. So maybe we got to ask ourselves:
If MMA, MVP and NesTea are dominating others that were in the top300, why shouldn't they (have the potential to) dominate/crush most of the other top300?
And if a lot of the other top300 pros can't compete with those 3 (and a bunch of others), why should someone who is 1.5years late to the party have better chances?

On February 13 2012 17:08 Arir wrote:
I`m one of the biggest Savior fans and followed him during his prime when he was completely unstoppable vs P and terrans couldnt handle his 3 hatch macro build. He was a genious and thats why he dominated.

That being said. I dont think Savior at his prime would have a chance vs most "modern" broodwar players. The reason he dominated was becouse he was ahead of his time and people didnt play vs his builds with optimal strategies.

Jaedong and Flash are the products of the most established training methods / skill and correct strategies. No progamer of past could compete against them during their prime time.

On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote:
kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?"

or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)?

On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:


Ah, so it is yet another case of not understanding the argument! I see I was right again. The dictionary definition of dominate is not as important as what Intrigue meant by it. I'll explain it in very simple terms what I mean.

I use MVP only as an example to illustrate my point. He represents the top of SC2. I could use other players too but using MVP is much less controversial since his level was better established than most others.

1. Intrigue knows BW scene
2. MVP is a top 100 BW player
3. Intrigue knows MVP is a top 100 BW player

4. Intrigue argues that BW skill is (at least to an extent) proportional to SC2 skill
5. Intrigue argues that the best 300 BW players have the potential to dominate SC2
6. Intrigue claims that MVP dominates SC2
7. Intrigue's argument would not be internally consistent if he argued top 300 (excluding the top 100) had the potential to dominate the top 100*
8. Intrigue did not argue that the best 300 BW players (excluding the top 100) would dominate MVP
9. Intrigue meant something else than what you think by dominate
10. I claim Intrigue meant something else than what you think by dominate
11. I am correct

* I suppose in a way they do have the potential (anybody can beat anybody). But not in the way Intrigue means.

And as for the second part, you really have trouble understanding this, don't you? It is still the non-BW players who are being dominated by the BW players. It is the BW players who are dominating the scene now. The best 300 BW players who would switch would also dominate the scene, but they would not dominate those BW players (who are already dominating) as they are both part of the same group. MVP and MC are amongst the best 300 BW players. But once we are more specific and talk about the A-teamers and such we get from dominating to crushing. It was a very clear distinction made by Intrigue. I hope you don't analyze things for a job! What kind of misunderstandings would that lead to! You should try something like an assembly line. You might find it more suitable for your skills.

On February 13 2012 13:54 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Although badly worded imo, I think I get what the 300 player thing is coming from.

Basically its not saying that the top 300 would beat MVP as that doesn't really make any sense as MVP was at least in the top 100. Its more or less saying that if the top 300 switched over, the competition and skill level would rise dramatically.

But most of the foreign SC2 players would probably be as they were in BW, and most of the code A players would be replaced with these BW players (at the time of the writing). The average skill level would inevitably rise dramatically and the less experienced/dedicated [SC2 only] players would fall down, it seems like an obvious point when you think about it. Perhaps at the fringes we may still see MVP/Nestea/MC still in code S. However, I'm sure TBLS would still be the top four, their skills are out of this world even without BW micro.

On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote:
imo, If a person is a great basketball player, it doesn't mean he's gonna be a great wheelchair basketball player

On February 13 2012 19:31 archonOOid wrote:
the only way for bw pros to enter the sc2 battlefield and become a major champion is that the sc2 starts dieing. Otherwise I don't see how well they can overcome the fact that sc2 pro-gamers have a major "time spent" advantage and a similar training regime.

On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote:
kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?"

or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)?