|
Stay on-topic please. Off-topic arguments derailing the thread will not be tolerated. Next spam post about eagles = ban. We get it, you're funnyTake the eagle stuff herestop with the bw vs wc3 bullshit please |
On April 04 2011 17:59 ct2299 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 17:29 Primadog wrote:On April 04 2011 17:25 acidfreak wrote:On April 04 2011 17:18 Primadog wrote:On April 04 2011 17:12 Geo.Rion wrote:
hmm, i was close enough with my pre MLG prediction
On April 01 2011 15:39 Geo.Rion wrote:
1. PvP finals
2. Cruncher not winning a single game
CrunCher (Round 4: 1-2 FXOpTiKzErO, Lower Round 6: 1-2 vVv.MurDeR) He won quite a few games. Yea, vs no-names in the open bracket, lol. Beats Fnatics.Fenix 2-1 in Open Upper Round 3. Well grats to him for beating one person we actually recognize lol. As predicted, Cruncher wouldn't get far, he's so overrated ever since his win against IdrA and the FXOpen which people say (I don't know if its true), had pretty bad lag. Also, I thought ROOT was going to "dominate" MLG. Excluding Destiny they had 5 guys? Only 1 made it into the Top 8 (I would say Top 10 but I can't confirm that). All i know is that CatZ had a pretty early exit, and Drewbie and Slush didn't make it that far either. Disappointing. That being said, grats grats grats to KiwiKaki on 2nd place, I never doubted that he would take first or second place.
Only koreans had some lag in our tournamnet. Idra did not.
|
On April 04 2011 17:59 ct2299 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 17:29 Primadog wrote:On April 04 2011 17:25 acidfreak wrote:On April 04 2011 17:18 Primadog wrote:On April 04 2011 17:12 Geo.Rion wrote:
hmm, i was close enough with my pre MLG prediction
On April 01 2011 15:39 Geo.Rion wrote:
1. PvP finals
2. Cruncher not winning a single game
CrunCher (Round 4: 1-2 FXOpTiKzErO, Lower Round 6: 1-2 vVv.MurDeR) He won quite a few games. Yea, vs no-names in the open bracket, lol. Beats Fnatics.Fenix 2-1 in Open Upper Round 3. Well grats to him for beating one person we actually recognize lol. As predicted, Cruncher wouldn't get far, he's so overrated ever since his win against IdrA and the FXOpen which people say (I don't know if its true), had pretty bad lag. Also, I thought ROOT was going to "dominate" MLG. Excluding Destiny they had 5 guys? Only 1 made it into the Top 8 (I would say Top 10 but I can't confirm that). All i know is that CatZ had a pretty early exit, and Drewbie and Slush didn't make it that far either. Disappointing. That being said, grats grats grats to KiwiKaki on 2nd place, I never doubted that he would take first or second place.
Drewbie actually made it pretty far, into the main losers bracket.
|
Is anyone else watching the rebroadcast on the MLG stream? Is there a schedule? I thought it would just show all of day 3 chronologically, but I think it just went from semi-final to round 6 losers bracket. I was hoping to catch the Sheth-QXC match I missed yesterday.
|
On April 04 2011 17:46 MeatlessTaco wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 17:18 Primadog wrote:On April 04 2011 17:12 Geo.Rion wrote:hmm, i was close enough with my pre MLG prediction On April 01 2011 15:39 Geo.Rion wrote:
1. PvP finals
2. Cruncher not winning a single game CrunCher (Round 4: 1-2 FXOpTiKzErO, Lower Round 6: 1-2 vVv.MurDeR) He won quite a few games. On April 04 2011 17:17 joheinous wrote:On April 04 2011 17:09 vol_ wrote:On April 04 2011 16:16 Finrod1 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
1. Dignitas.Naniwa 5.000 $
2. ROOT.Kiwikaki 3.000 $
3. Dignitas.Select 2.000 $
4. EG.Incontrol 1.400 $
5. Liquid.TLO 1.000 $
6. aTn.Socke 700 $
7. EG.Idra 500 $
8. FXO.Moonan 400 $
Idra probably wiped his ass with his 500 Why? it's his biggest prize from a tournament in a while right? and 500 dollars is not a small amount at all, we've just been spoiled with all these ridiculous prize pools lately^^ See: http://ehcg.djgamblore.com/player.php?id=17 http://ehcg.djgamblore.com/index.phpHow do these guys not have day jobs?
There are a lot of alternative revenues for progamers. First of many are paid a salary by their team, then many get stream revenues (which is REALLY high if it is a popular player). Then many pros are coaching and earn a lot of money from that. Think about it, Idra takes 150 dollar for 1 hour coaching and people buy that. Also there exists personal sponsorships, and some pros live in team houses with all living expenses paid by the team.
|
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing?
|
On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing?
He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals.
|
On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals.
You got to give yourself a little room to improve. 
|
On April 04 2011 19:18 Ghad wrote:Tragic to see how much better our neighbors are at gaming, but it clearly comes down to mentality. Norwegian esport is at a shitty place with almost noone willing to stick to their guns and Actually improve.
Norway have had some impressive results in the past compared to your population. People like  Slayer were far ahead of any Swedes in his time. You have also had some great CS players.
|
On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals.
Which is as many as he won over Kiwi.
I don't have a problem with Double Elimination in general, but the finals are often disappointing. They played 2-2 in the grand finals, and Naniwa won because he had a 2-0 advantage for being in the winner bracket. Now he obviously played a better tournament than Kiwikaki and thus deserved that advantage, but I feel like we didn't see how they did in direct competition, especially because they seemed to be pretty close and they both managed to get two wins.
I don't want to take anything away from Naniwa, he played an amazing tournament, it's just something that bugs me in double elimination.
|
Too bad the event was a bit disappointing with the stream and scheduling issues (Well and the timezone difference compared to europe but they can't be blamed for this, its a american event afterall), with all the high class players it deserved to be better.
I would like to see an updated mlg point ranking though to see what players are seeded for MLG Columbus. Is this available anywhere? Couldn't find it on the MLG homepage (which is quite a mess IMHO).
|
On April 04 2011 20:50 Gr33d wrote:
Too bad the event was a bit disappointing with the stream and scheduling issues (Well and the timezone difference compared to europe but they can't be blamed for this, its a american event afterall), with all the high class players it deserved to be better.
I would like to see an updated mlg point ranking though to see what players are seeded for MLG Columbus. Is this available anywhere? Couldn't find it on the MLG homepage (which is quite a mess IMHO).
I think the top 16 of this event are. Don't think last years rating will have an impact on the 2nd event.
|
On April 04 2011 20:44 blackone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals. Which is as many as he won over Kiwi. I don't have a problem with Double Elimination in general, but the finals are often disappointing. They played 2-2 in the grand finals, and Naniwa won because he had a 2-0 advantage for being in the winner bracket. Now he obviously played a better tournament than Kiwikaki and thus deserved that advantage, but I feel like we didn't see how they did in direct competition, especially because they seemed to be pretty close and they both managed to get two wins. I don't want to take anything away from Naniwa, he played an amazing tournament, it's just something that bugs me in double elimination.
Ugh I hate stating this over and over again but Naniwa knocked Kiwi out of the Winners bracket with a 2-0 score.
There wouldn't be a 2-0 advantage to Naniwa if it wasnt for the fact that he'd beaten Kiwi 2-0 before, that's the entire point with the extended series.
In conclusion; Naniwa 4-2:ed Kiwi in total.
|
On April 04 2011 20:44 blackone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals. Which is as many as he won over Kiwi. I don't have a problem with Double Elimination in general, but the finals are often disappointing. They played 2-2 in the grand finals, and Naniwa won because he had a 2-0 advantage for being in the winner bracket. Now he obviously played a better tournament than Kiwikaki and thus deserved that advantage, but I feel like we didn't see how they did in direct competition, especially because they seemed to be pretty close and they both managed to get two wins. I don't want to take anything away from Naniwa, he played an amazing tournament, it's just something that bugs me in double elimination.
Yeah I also have the feeling that the finals aren't as exiting as a standard tournament setup. You basicly have 2 not-really-finals with the WB final not being the last match (and only a bo3 here) and the WB vs LB usually being so advantagous to the WB player that the outcome is already decided. But other than that it's a good format.
|
On April 04 2011 20:44 blackone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals. Which is as many as he won over Kiwi. I don't have a problem with Double Elimination in general, but the finals are often disappointing. They played 2-2 in the grand finals, and Naniwa won because he had a 2-0 advantage for being in the winner bracket. Now he obviously played a better tournament than Kiwikaki and thus deserved that advantage, but I feel like we didn't see how they did in direct competition, especially because they seemed to be pretty close and they both managed to get two wins. I don't want to take anything away from Naniwa, he played an amazing tournament, it's just something that bugs me in double elimination.
No he had a 2-0 advantage because he beat kiwikaki 2-0 in round one of the finals.
|
On April 04 2011 20:56 Vimsey wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:44 blackone wrote:On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals. Which is as many as he won over Kiwi. I don't have a problem with Double Elimination in general, but the finals are often disappointing. They played 2-2 in the grand finals, and Naniwa won because he had a 2-0 advantage for being in the winner bracket. Now he obviously played a better tournament than Kiwikaki and thus deserved that advantage, but I feel like we didn't see how they did in direct competition, especially because they seemed to be pretty close and they both managed to get two wins. I don't want to take anything away from Naniwa, he played an amazing tournament, it's just something that bugs me in double elimination. No he had a 2-0 advantage because he beat kiwikaki 2-0 in round one of the finals.
He is right. The advantage is from WB. Extended series doesn't really play a role in the final game. So you can imagine it going by normal DB rules which means Kiwi has to win 2 bo3s while Nani needed 1 bo3 because Nani was in WB and Kiwi LB. Even if they never faced Nani would have this advantage. That is double elim.
On April 04 2011 20:53 meRz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:44 blackone wrote:On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals. Which is as many as he won over Kiwi. I don't have a problem with Double Elimination in general, but the finals are often disappointing. They played 2-2 in the grand finals, and Naniwa won because he had a 2-0 advantage for being in the winner bracket. Now he obviously played a better tournament than Kiwikaki and thus deserved that advantage, but I feel like we didn't see how they did in direct competition, especially because they seemed to be pretty close and they both managed to get two wins. I don't want to take anything away from Naniwa, he played an amazing tournament, it's just something that bugs me in double elimination. Ugh I hate stating this over and over again but Naniwa knocked Kiwi out of the Winners bracket with a 2-0 score. There wouldn't be a 2-0 advantage to Naniwa if it wasnt for the fact that he'd beaten Kiwi 2-0 before, that's the entire point with the extended series. In conclusion; Naniwa 4-2:ed Kiwi in total.
Again I repeat this he would have still had an advantage even if he never faced Kiwikaki. MLG is STILL Double elim even if they throw in extended series. Naniwa never lost a series which means he still has to lose 2 series regardless of Extended series.
|
On April 04 2011 20:58 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:56 Vimsey wrote:On April 04 2011 20:44 blackone wrote:On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals. Which is as many as he won over Kiwi. I don't have a problem with Double Elimination in general, but the finals are often disappointing. They played 2-2 in the grand finals, and Naniwa won because he had a 2-0 advantage for being in the winner bracket. Now he obviously played a better tournament than Kiwikaki and thus deserved that advantage, but I feel like we didn't see how they did in direct competition, especially because they seemed to be pretty close and they both managed to get two wins. I don't want to take anything away from Naniwa, he played an amazing tournament, it's just something that bugs me in double elimination. No he had a 2-0 advantage because he beat kiwikaki 2-0 in round one of the finals. He is right. The advantage is from WB. Extended series doesn't really play a role in the final game. So you can imagine it going by normal DB rules which means Kiwi has to win 2 bo3s while Nani needed 1 bo3 because Nani was in WB and Kiwi LB. Even if they never faced Nani would have this advanttage. That is double elim.
He still worded it as if Nani only took down Kiwi twice, which isn't true. The overall score between Nani/Kiwi in MLG was 4-2 for Nani. But yeah other than that, this is double elimination for you 
|
On April 04 2011 20:44 blackone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals. Which is as many as he won over Kiwi. I don't have a problem with Double Elimination in general, but the finals are often disappointing. They played 2-2 in the grand finals, and Naniwa won because he had a 2-0 advantage for being in the winner bracket. Now he obviously played a better tournament than Kiwikaki and thus deserved that advantage, but I feel like we didn't see how they did in direct competition, especially because they seemed to be pretty close and they both managed to get two wins. I don't want to take anything away from Naniwa, he played an amazing tournament, it's just something that bugs me in double elimination.
It's more the extended series I have a problem with than double elimination. I much prefer having a bo X and if the player from the winners bracket loses you play another bo X. Maybe the difference isn't huge but it feels more logical.
|
So knowing how they seeded this time and having the top 16 ranking of this Event we can already see the Columbus groups I think, at least when they all attend:
Group A
1) Naniwa
8) Moonan
9) Slush
16) Tyler
Group B
2) Kiwikaki
7) Idra
10) Huk
15) Machine
Group C
3) Select
6) Socke
11) Drewbie
14) Haypro
Group D
4) InControl
5) TLO
12) Sjow
13) Ret
|
On April 04 2011 21:01 meRz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:58 Numy wrote:On April 04 2011 20:56 Vimsey wrote:On April 04 2011 20:44 blackone wrote:On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals. Which is as many as he won over Kiwi. I don't have a problem with Double Elimination in general, but the finals are often disappointing. They played 2-2 in the grand finals, and Naniwa won because he had a 2-0 advantage for being in the winner bracket. Now he obviously played a better tournament than Kiwikaki and thus deserved that advantage, but I feel like we didn't see how they did in direct competition, especially because they seemed to be pretty close and they both managed to get two wins. I don't want to take anything away from Naniwa, he played an amazing tournament, it's just something that bugs me in double elimination. No he had a 2-0 advantage because he beat kiwikaki 2-0 in round one of the finals. He is right. The advantage is from WB. Extended series doesn't really play a role in the final game. So you can imagine it going by normal DB rules which means Kiwi has to win 2 bo3s while Nani needed 1 bo3 because Nani was in WB and Kiwi LB. Even if they never faced Nani would have this advanttage. That is double elim. He still worded it as if Nani only took down Kiwi twice, which isn't true. The overall score between Nani/Kiwi in MLG was 4-2 for Nani. But yeah other than that, this is double elimination for you
Yea double elim has always sucked for the finals. It's a better way of getting the best players further but the finals will always be a toss up. If the LB guy does well it is excited, if the WB guy does well it's a bit anti-climatic. 
|
On April 04 2011 20:58 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2011 20:56 Vimsey wrote:On April 04 2011 20:44 blackone wrote:On April 04 2011 20:12 htwest wrote:On April 04 2011 20:10 Arnstein wrote:
Did Naniwa lose any games in the finals or did he go through the whole tournament without losing? He dropped two games to Kiwikaki in the finals. Which is as many as he won over Kiwi. I don't have a problem with Double Elimination in general, but the finals are often disappointing. They played 2-2 in the grand finals, and Naniwa won because he had a 2-0 advantage for being in the winner bracket. Now he obviously played a better tournament than Kiwikaki and thus deserved that advantage, but I feel like we didn't see how they did in direct competition, especially because they seemed to be pretty close and they both managed to get two wins. I don't want to take anything away from Naniwa, he played an amazing tournament, it's just something that bugs me in double elimination. No he had a 2-0 advantage because he beat kiwikaki 2-0 in round one of the finals. He is right. The advantage is from WB. Extended series doesn't really play a role in the final game. So you can imagine it going by normal DB rules which means Kiwi has to win 2 bo3s while Nani needed 1 bo3 because Nani was in WB and Kiwi LB. Even if they never faced Nani would have this advantage. That is double elim. [ No he is not as I said he had the advantage because he beat kiwikak, kiwikaki lost against Naniwa so therefore the reason why he had a disadvantage to Naniwa was because he already lost to him once. Having to beat a player twice to win who already had the advantage of not playing as many games due to his seeding is bad enough without people wanting to further handicap Naniwa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
