|
On June 19 2011 11:23 Clog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 10:32 bittman wrote:On June 19 2011 10:28 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:19 CosmicSpiral wrote:
He won, therefore he played better. I really hate when people say this Why? What game in the history of starcraft has the player who played better lost? Polt played better. Is Polt a better player than MMA? I honestly cannot say yay or nay because I don't think MMA played that well. Thus, using powers of deduction: Polt played better. I didn't say MMA played better. It's just a bit of a fallacy to assume the player who won played better (it's usually the case though). I just don't get why it's so hard for some people to say "Hey, you know, even though Player A ended up winning this game, he did this and this that was actually pretty bad and could have lost him the game if he wasn't ahead" or "Hey, you know, even though Player B ended up losing this game, his strategy would have looked brilliant if his opponent was playing a bit more standard". Anyone can be like "Well he won. Guess he was better." For sake of argument - Hypothetical Situation + Show Spoiler +Let's say Player A is playing against Player B in a Bo3.
Let's also assume that by analyzing each player's play, we can rate their skill displayed, or equivalently "how well the player played" with a simple system from 1-10, such that a 10 indicates the player played brilliantly, and a 1 indicates he played like crap.
Let's also assume that the number is indisputable, and that the player with the higher number (aka the better play in the given game) will always win.
Game 1 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Game 2 - Player A gets a 1. Player B gets a 9. Player B is victorious.
Game 3 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Player A averages a rating of 7 per game, whereas Player B averages a 9 per game. Player B has played "better" in this series than his opponent. However, Player A still takes the series. Now, it's not like that happens a lot, or that we can actually fulfill those assumptions that easily, but you can see why I don't like that people assume he's better just because he won the series. I'd rather people say Polt is better because of his great preparation in his build order choices against MMA that handled most situations very well, as well as his constant aggression and control that was able to keep MMA on his heels and off a 3rd base in game 2. See? Same conclusion. Just a more meaningful way of getting to it, I guess. I just don't like tallying up wins for players and deciding from that. "Wow MVP and MC lost in the Ro64 in this tournament? They must suck! They didn't win! Clearly TheBestfOu is a far superior player for winning more games."
Polt played better than MMA (and a bunch of other good players) in the GSL ST. Saying anything beyond that is just theorizing and IMO a waste of time.
Why let it bother you that other people think Polt is conclusively better than MMA? You're probably not going to convince them otherwise with logic, and you make yourself sound like you're trying to belittle Polt's victory. Take it easy~
Did anyone think the sCfOu vs DRG LG final was more exciting than the supertourney final? I fell asleep halfway through Polt v MMA :o
Edit: just to be clear, I do mostly agree with your point Clog. I do think Polt played "better" in this final (preparing build orders is part of the game, and executing them right actually takes skill), but I agree that trying to say he's just generally superior to MMA is silly. Neither of them have a long/consistent enough record to argue that point yet, IMO.
|
On June 19 2011 11:23 Clog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 10:32 bittman wrote:On June 19 2011 10:28 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:19 CosmicSpiral wrote:
He won, therefore he played better. I really hate when people say this Why? What game in the history of starcraft has the player who played better lost? Polt played better. Is Polt a better player than MMA? I honestly cannot say yay or nay because I don't think MMA played that well. Thus, using powers of deduction: Polt played better. I didn't say MMA played better. It's just a bit of a fallacy to assume the player who won played better (it's usually the case though). I just don't get why it's so hard for some people to say "Hey, you know, even though Player A ended up winning this game, he did this and this that was actually pretty bad and could have lost him the game if he wasn't ahead" or "Hey, you know, even though Player B ended up losing this game, his strategy would have looked brilliant if his opponent was playing a bit more standard". Anyone can be like "Well he won. Guess he was better." For sake of argument - Hypothetical Situation + Show Spoiler +Let's say Player A is playing against Player B in a Bo3.
Let's also assume that by analyzing each player's play, we can rate their skill displayed, or equivalently "how well the player played" with a simple system from 1-10, such that a 10 indicates the player played brilliantly, and a 1 indicates he played like crap.
Let's also assume that the number is indisputable, and that the player with the higher number (aka the better play in the given game) will always win.
Game 1 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Game 2 - Player A gets a 1. Player B gets a 9. Player B is victorious.
Game 3 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Player A averages a rating of 7 per game, whereas Player B averages a 9 per game. Player B has played "better" in this series than his opponent. However, Player A still takes the series. Now, it's not like that happens a lot, or that we can actually fulfill those assumptions that easily, but you can see why I don't like that people assume he's better just because he won the series. I'd rather people say Polt is better because of his great preparation in his build order choices against MMA that handled most situations very well, as well as his constant aggression and control that was able to keep MMA on his heels and off a 3rd base in game 2. See? Same conclusion. Just a more meaningful way of getting to it, I guess. I just don't like tallying up wins for players and deciding from that. "Wow MVP and MC lost in the Ro64 in this tournament? They must suck! They didn't win! Clearly TheBestfOu is a far superior player for winning more games."
I pretty much agree with most of this. The only problem in this particular case is that it was a best of seven that Polt won 4-0. If this isn't indicative of Polt being a better play, I don't know what proof would be needed.
Though I guess it would only suggest he's a better TvT'er, not necessarily a better player (based only on this one series, I'm not gonna argue one way or another). Skyhigh is 6-0 vs Fantasy but I dont think anyones gonna argue Skyhigh is the overall better player (sorry couldnt think of a sc2 example).
|
On June 19 2011 11:33 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 11:23 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:32 bittman wrote:On June 19 2011 10:28 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:19 CosmicSpiral wrote:
He won, therefore he played better. I really hate when people say this Why? What game in the history of starcraft has the player who played better lost? Polt played better. Is Polt a better player than MMA? I honestly cannot say yay or nay because I don't think MMA played that well. Thus, using powers of deduction: Polt played better. I didn't say MMA played better. It's just a bit of a fallacy to assume the player who won played better (it's usually the case though). I just don't get why it's so hard for some people to say "Hey, you know, even though Player A ended up winning this game, he did this and this that was actually pretty bad and could have lost him the game if he wasn't ahead" or "Hey, you know, even though Player B ended up losing this game, his strategy would have looked brilliant if his opponent was playing a bit more standard". Anyone can be like "Well he won. Guess he was better." For sake of argument - Hypothetical Situation + Show Spoiler +Let's say Player A is playing against Player B in a Bo3.
Let's also assume that by analyzing each player's play, we can rate their skill displayed, or equivalently "how well the player played" with a simple system from 1-10, such that a 10 indicates the player played brilliantly, and a 1 indicates he played like crap.
Let's also assume that the number is indisputable, and that the player with the higher number (aka the better play in the given game) will always win.
Game 1 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Game 2 - Player A gets a 1. Player B gets a 9. Player B is victorious.
Game 3 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Player A averages a rating of 7 per game, whereas Player B averages a 9 per game. Player B has played "better" in this series than his opponent. However, Player A still takes the series. Now, it's not like that happens a lot, or that we can actually fulfill those assumptions that easily, but you can see why I don't like that people assume he's better just because he won the series. I'd rather people say Polt is better because of his great preparation in his build order choices against MMA that handled most situations very well, as well as his constant aggression and control that was able to keep MMA on his heels and off a 3rd base in game 2. See? Same conclusion. Just a more meaningful way of getting to it, I guess. I just don't like tallying up wins for players and deciding from that. "Wow MVP and MC lost in the Ro64 in this tournament? They must suck! They didn't win! Clearly TheBestfOu is a far superior player for winning more games." Polt played better than MMA (and a bunch of other good players) in the GSL ST. Saying anything beyond that is just theorizing and IMO a waste of time. Why let it bother you that other people think Polt is conclusively better than MMA? You're probably not going to convince them otherwise with logic, and you make yourself sound like you're trying to belittle Polt's victory. Take it easy~ Did anyone think the sCfOu vs DRG LG final was more exciting than the supertourney final? I fell asleep halfway through Polt v MMA :o
Can't tell if trolling
But I think Polt played better than MMA. I even said that. I just don't like when people say he's better simply because he won. He's better because of his strong builds, decision making and other stuff I listed
|
On June 19 2011 11:36 Bibbit wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 11:23 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:32 bittman wrote:On June 19 2011 10:28 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:19 CosmicSpiral wrote:
He won, therefore he played better. I really hate when people say this Why? What game in the history of starcraft has the player who played better lost? Polt played better. Is Polt a better player than MMA? I honestly cannot say yay or nay because I don't think MMA played that well. Thus, using powers of deduction: Polt played better. I didn't say MMA played better. It's just a bit of a fallacy to assume the player who won played better (it's usually the case though). I just don't get why it's so hard for some people to say "Hey, you know, even though Player A ended up winning this game, he did this and this that was actually pretty bad and could have lost him the game if he wasn't ahead" or "Hey, you know, even though Player B ended up losing this game, his strategy would have looked brilliant if his opponent was playing a bit more standard". Anyone can be like "Well he won. Guess he was better." For sake of argument - Hypothetical Situation + Show Spoiler +Let's say Player A is playing against Player B in a Bo3.
Let's also assume that by analyzing each player's play, we can rate their skill displayed, or equivalently "how well the player played" with a simple system from 1-10, such that a 10 indicates the player played brilliantly, and a 1 indicates he played like crap.
Let's also assume that the number is indisputable, and that the player with the higher number (aka the better play in the given game) will always win.
Game 1 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Game 2 - Player A gets a 1. Player B gets a 9. Player B is victorious.
Game 3 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Player A averages a rating of 7 per game, whereas Player B averages a 9 per game. Player B has played "better" in this series than his opponent. However, Player A still takes the series. Now, it's not like that happens a lot, or that we can actually fulfill those assumptions that easily, but you can see why I don't like that people assume he's better just because he won the series. I'd rather people say Polt is better because of his great preparation in his build order choices against MMA that handled most situations very well, as well as his constant aggression and control that was able to keep MMA on his heels and off a 3rd base in game 2. See? Same conclusion. Just a more meaningful way of getting to it, I guess. I just don't like tallying up wins for players and deciding from that. "Wow MVP and MC lost in the Ro64 in this tournament? They must suck! They didn't win! Clearly TheBestfOu is a far superior player for winning more games." I pretty much agree with most of this. The only problem in this particular case is that it was a best of seven that Polt won 4-0. If this isn't indicative of Polt being a better play, I don't know what proof would be needed. Though I guess it would only suggest he's a better TvT'er, not necessarily a better player (based only on this one series, I'm not gonna argue one way or another). Skyhigh is 6-0 vs Fantasy but I dont think anyones gonna argue Skyhigh is the overall better player (sorry couldnt think of a sc2 example).
Yeah, I know the 4-0 is pretty convincing. I think some of my wording caused my point to get lost among my rambling. I've just gotten tired of people "WOW"-ing at the winning player in almost every single game in LR threads, even when the gameplay itself was rather unimpressive. Just seems like some people are more impressed with the fact they won rather than how they won. But maybe I'm just crazy -_-
|
On June 19 2011 11:36 Clog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 11:33 warbaby wrote:On June 19 2011 11:23 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:32 bittman wrote:On June 19 2011 10:28 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:19 CosmicSpiral wrote:
He won, therefore he played better. I really hate when people say this Why? What game in the history of starcraft has the player who played better lost? Polt played better. Is Polt a better player than MMA? I honestly cannot say yay or nay because I don't think MMA played that well. Thus, using powers of deduction: Polt played better. I didn't say MMA played better. It's just a bit of a fallacy to assume the player who won played better (it's usually the case though). I just don't get why it's so hard for some people to say "Hey, you know, even though Player A ended up winning this game, he did this and this that was actually pretty bad and could have lost him the game if he wasn't ahead" or "Hey, you know, even though Player B ended up losing this game, his strategy would have looked brilliant if his opponent was playing a bit more standard". Anyone can be like "Well he won. Guess he was better." For sake of argument - Hypothetical Situation + Show Spoiler +Let's say Player A is playing against Player B in a Bo3.
Let's also assume that by analyzing each player's play, we can rate their skill displayed, or equivalently "how well the player played" with a simple system from 1-10, such that a 10 indicates the player played brilliantly, and a 1 indicates he played like crap.
Let's also assume that the number is indisputable, and that the player with the higher number (aka the better play in the given game) will always win.
Game 1 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Game 2 - Player A gets a 1. Player B gets a 9. Player B is victorious.
Game 3 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Player A averages a rating of 7 per game, whereas Player B averages a 9 per game. Player B has played "better" in this series than his opponent. However, Player A still takes the series. Now, it's not like that happens a lot, or that we can actually fulfill those assumptions that easily, but you can see why I don't like that people assume he's better just because he won the series. I'd rather people say Polt is better because of his great preparation in his build order choices against MMA that handled most situations very well, as well as his constant aggression and control that was able to keep MMA on his heels and off a 3rd base in game 2. See? Same conclusion. Just a more meaningful way of getting to it, I guess. I just don't like tallying up wins for players and deciding from that. "Wow MVP and MC lost in the Ro64 in this tournament? They must suck! They didn't win! Clearly TheBestfOu is a far superior player for winning more games." Polt played better than MMA (and a bunch of other good players) in the GSL ST. Saying anything beyond that is just theorizing and IMO a waste of time. Why let it bother you that other people think Polt is conclusively better than MMA? You're probably not going to convince them otherwise with logic, and you make yourself sound like you're trying to belittle Polt's victory. Take it easy~ Did anyone think the sCfOu vs DRG LG final was more exciting than the supertourney final? I fell asleep halfway through Polt v MMA :o Can't tell if trolling But I think Polt played better than MMA. I even said that. I just don't like when people say he's better simply because he won. He's better because of his strong builds, decision making and other stuff I listed
Sorry, I wasn't trying to troll you  . I realized I didn't articulate my point well so I edited my post.
|
On June 19 2011 11:40 Clog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 11:36 Bibbit wrote:On June 19 2011 11:23 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:32 bittman wrote:On June 19 2011 10:28 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:19 CosmicSpiral wrote:
He won, therefore he played better. I really hate when people say this Why? What game in the history of starcraft has the player who played better lost? Polt played better. Is Polt a better player than MMA? I honestly cannot say yay or nay because I don't think MMA played that well. Thus, using powers of deduction: Polt played better. I didn't say MMA played better. It's just a bit of a fallacy to assume the player who won played better (it's usually the case though). I just don't get why it's so hard for some people to say "Hey, you know, even though Player A ended up winning this game, he did this and this that was actually pretty bad and could have lost him the game if he wasn't ahead" or "Hey, you know, even though Player B ended up losing this game, his strategy would have looked brilliant if his opponent was playing a bit more standard". Anyone can be like "Well he won. Guess he was better." For sake of argument - Hypothetical Situation + Show Spoiler +Let's say Player A is playing against Player B in a Bo3.
Let's also assume that by analyzing each player's play, we can rate their skill displayed, or equivalently "how well the player played" with a simple system from 1-10, such that a 10 indicates the player played brilliantly, and a 1 indicates he played like crap.
Let's also assume that the number is indisputable, and that the player with the higher number (aka the better play in the given game) will always win.
Game 1 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Game 2 - Player A gets a 1. Player B gets a 9. Player B is victorious.
Game 3 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Player A averages a rating of 7 per game, whereas Player B averages a 9 per game. Player B has played "better" in this series than his opponent. However, Player A still takes the series. Now, it's not like that happens a lot, or that we can actually fulfill those assumptions that easily, but you can see why I don't like that people assume he's better just because he won the series. I'd rather people say Polt is better because of his great preparation in his build order choices against MMA that handled most situations very well, as well as his constant aggression and control that was able to keep MMA on his heels and off a 3rd base in game 2. See? Same conclusion. Just a more meaningful way of getting to it, I guess. I just don't like tallying up wins for players and deciding from that. "Wow MVP and MC lost in the Ro64 in this tournament? They must suck! They didn't win! Clearly TheBestfOu is a far superior player for winning more games." I pretty much agree with most of this. The only problem in this particular case is that it was a best of seven that Polt won 4-0. If this isn't indicative of Polt being a better play, I don't know what proof would be needed. Though I guess it would only suggest he's a better TvT'er, not necessarily a better player (based only on this one series, I'm not gonna argue one way or another). Skyhigh is 6-0 vs Fantasy but I dont think anyones gonna argue Skyhigh is the overall better player (sorry couldnt think of a sc2 example). Yeah, I know the 4-0 is pretty convincing. I think some of my wording caused my point to get lost among my rambling. I've just gotten tired of people "WOW"-ing at the winning player in almost every single game in LR threads, even when the gameplay itself was rather unimpressive. Just seems like some people are more impressed with the fact they won rather than how they won. But maybe I'm just crazy -_-
Ok yup, agreed 100% :D:D
|
Okay, there is a difference between playing better and BEING better. When someone beats another person in a game, they PLAYED better. But since no one's win % is 100, are they somehow worse than the players that beat them? No. I've beaten players far above my skill level, because i played better but in no way would i argue that somehow makes me better than them
|
On June 19 2011 11:40 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2011 11:36 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 11:33 warbaby wrote:On June 19 2011 11:23 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:32 bittman wrote:On June 19 2011 10:28 Clog wrote:On June 19 2011 10:19 CosmicSpiral wrote:
He won, therefore he played better. I really hate when people say this Why? What game in the history of starcraft has the player who played better lost? Polt played better. Is Polt a better player than MMA? I honestly cannot say yay or nay because I don't think MMA played that well. Thus, using powers of deduction: Polt played better. I didn't say MMA played better. It's just a bit of a fallacy to assume the player who won played better (it's usually the case though). I just don't get why it's so hard for some people to say "Hey, you know, even though Player A ended up winning this game, he did this and this that was actually pretty bad and could have lost him the game if he wasn't ahead" or "Hey, you know, even though Player B ended up losing this game, his strategy would have looked brilliant if his opponent was playing a bit more standard". Anyone can be like "Well he won. Guess he was better." For sake of argument - Hypothetical Situation + Show Spoiler +Let's say Player A is playing against Player B in a Bo3.
Let's also assume that by analyzing each player's play, we can rate their skill displayed, or equivalently "how well the player played" with a simple system from 1-10, such that a 10 indicates the player played brilliantly, and a 1 indicates he played like crap.
Let's also assume that the number is indisputable, and that the player with the higher number (aka the better play in the given game) will always win.
Game 1 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Game 2 - Player A gets a 1. Player B gets a 9. Player B is victorious.
Game 3 - Player A gets a 10. Player B gets a 9. Player A is victorious.
Player A averages a rating of 7 per game, whereas Player B averages a 9 per game. Player B has played "better" in this series than his opponent. However, Player A still takes the series. Now, it's not like that happens a lot, or that we can actually fulfill those assumptions that easily, but you can see why I don't like that people assume he's better just because he won the series. I'd rather people say Polt is better because of his great preparation in his build order choices against MMA that handled most situations very well, as well as his constant aggression and control that was able to keep MMA on his heels and off a 3rd base in game 2. See? Same conclusion. Just a more meaningful way of getting to it, I guess. I just don't like tallying up wins for players and deciding from that. "Wow MVP and MC lost in the Ro64 in this tournament? They must suck! They didn't win! Clearly TheBestfOu is a far superior player for winning more games." Polt played better than MMA (and a bunch of other good players) in the GSL ST. Saying anything beyond that is just theorizing and IMO a waste of time. Why let it bother you that other people think Polt is conclusively better than MMA? You're probably not going to convince them otherwise with logic, and you make yourself sound like you're trying to belittle Polt's victory. Take it easy~ Did anyone think the sCfOu vs DRG LG final was more exciting than the supertourney final? I fell asleep halfway through Polt v MMA :o Can't tell if trolling But I think Polt played better than MMA. I even said that. I just don't like when people say he's better simply because he won. He's better because of his strong builds, decision making and other stuff I listed Sorry, I wasn't trying to troll you . I realized I didn't articulate my point well so I edited my post.
It's okay I did overreact a bit  Just went on a rambling spree and didn't word things right...
|
On June 18 2011 19:20 -swordguy wrote:Poll: Best part of the GSL?Korean girl commentator (92) 51% SC/DRG games (49) 27% MMA/Polt games (26) 14% Rainbow (15) 8% 182 total votes Your vote: Best part of the GSL? (Vote): SC/DRG games
(Vote): MMA/Polt games
(Vote): Rainbow
(Vote): Korean girl commentator
We know what the best part was lol
I guess this answers my earlier question about which match was more exciting. I really did fall asleep during MMA vs Polt (watching live in the middle of the night -- I live in EST). Also, while the Korean woman caster is awesome, I'm a much bigger Mr. Chae fan. Mr. Chae is ESPORTS. xD
|
wow another disappointing finals, thank god for the showmatch, it was actually entertaining. Props to Polt though, he shut up a lot of haters I'm sure.
|
wow another really exciting finals........ NOT
|
Just watched the VODs... the curse of GSL finals continues
|
MKP - How do you think you will play out your match against MMA?
Ever since getting into the round of 16, I have believed that I would be facing MMA in the semifinals. During that time, I have found MMA’s weakness. I will show what this is during the semifinals. If MMA doesn’t fix this weakness because coming to face me, I will make sure to win handedly against him.
MMA- Marineking claimed that he had found your weakness.
I have thought about my weakness, but I can’t figure it out. I don’t think he was able to exploit it that much today. I hope he can help me find my weakness next time.
Polt- Most people picked MMA to win. What was the secret behind beating him so soundly 4:0?
I was able to pick apart MMA’s weakness. His style usually begins by taking a quick expand while sitting back on defense. I decided to not take the expansion and macroed up on one base, so when my opponent ends up expanding, I can do one strong push which he cannot stop.
i think the reason why he lost because he didnt know his weakness. now he know he should be able to comeback from this. Prime terran(MKP/Maka/Polt) is good and aggresive,timing in the early game while Slayers terran(ganzi/boxer/ryung/MMA) is much better at mid and late game and decision making and contain on mid to late and good at defending. that was i notice on prime games since i dont see them all the time with 3+base, MVP on the other hand is the only terran is good at early/mid/late.
|
I just want to point out that for all of you people who are saying that polt is such a beast etc. MMA has been playing TvT throughout the whole GSL and odds are Polt was watching those games. Not the mention the fact that Polt's mentor himself MarineKing played MMA only a week earlier. Not the burst the bubble Polt DID NOT PLAY AMAZING. He played smart which I commend him for. Doing a 2 barracks stim timing and killing all of MMAs scvs is gosu when he has one bunker? Last time I checked that was a platnium league strategy that was getting a lot of hate. Basically what I'm trying to say Polt did not show spectacular macro/ micro and we didn't see the fantastic games of the Marine King v MMA series. Polt merely countered MMA's expansion heavy TvT style and abused his early weakness and got a very early lead. So please don't act like Polt is totally outplaying MMA and that MMA is just overrated, they are both fantastic players but we all knew that sooner or later MMA would eventually run out of tricks and his style would be defeated. I would bet almost anything that if I had a weak to prepare with a player that just recently lost a my opponent in one of the closest bo5s we have seen I would take a few games of MMA.
|
LMFAO at people still trying not to give Polt credit. He didn't just cheese and win one game or something. He won a bo7, not only won it, won it 4-0!
He's not a better player, just better at TvT? Really? The only match up MMA played in this tourny was TvT while Polt played all three races.
I am a pretty big MMA fan myself but Polt just played smarter and MMA couldn't adapt. People have got to stop shitting on Polt.
|
I'm glad mma didn't win. Everyone is jumping off the mma bandwagon now.
|
Polt played better but mma is still a fantastic terran :S
|
So polt is 49-18 since february, pretty impressive.
|
On June 19 2011 17:00 SgtPepper wrote:
LMFAO at people still trying not to give Polt credit. He didn't just cheese and win one game or something. He won a bo7, not only won it, won it 4-0!
He's not a better player, just better at TvT? Really? The only match up MMA played in this tourny was TvT while Polt played all three races.
I am a pretty big MMA fan myself but Polt just played smarter and MMA couldn't adapt. People have got to stop shitting on Polt.
With regards to the usual "MMA only played TvT so he should win lawl" logic, the fact is that MMA only had quite a few TvT videos of Polt to actually study (at least, concerning Polt's revamped style) while Polt had a multitude of MMA's TvT matches to study and make counter-builds off. MMA basically showed all his cards, while Polt just flipped over one or two. That's what some people are arguing.
People already noted that MMA's risky early game build order was a gaping hole that good players would easily take advantage of (too tech-focused), his lackluster TvP, and his penchant for going standard marine mech combo. With the numerous TvT matches MMA has had throughout the super tournament, the team leagues and on MLG, it would be easy for anyone to pick up on how weak he is in the early game (especially if you watch the matches he's had in sequence, not counting the cheese-wins). In fact, MarineKing DID pick up on it, but was just too overconfident heading toward his third set against MMA, bringing about his loss, and eventually tilting due to his confidence slowly getting crushed.
A smart competitor would take advantage of the weakness in one's gameplan or tactics. It's called playing safe, and taking minimal risks. People that are either reckless or very confident in their abilities on the other hand would go head to head against competition and beat them at their own game. Beating people at what they are good at is frankly much more impressive to see, from a spectator's point of view. Take for example actual mixed martial arts: a Brazilian Jiujitsu fighter outwrestling a Div. I wrestling champion, or a wrestler submitting a legitimately skilled Brazilian Jiujitsu blackbelt, or a wrestler/jiujitsu fighter winning a striking battle against a fearsome striker. Those are the type of things that wow a crowd and make bigger fans out of people.
In mixed martial arts terms, PoltPrime.WE would be George St. Pierre (the UFC welterweight champion) and SlayerS_MMA would be Jake Shields (former Strikeforce middleweight champion). George St. Pierre is good on all three aspects of mixed martial arts, but prefers to take advantage of the weaknesses of the challengers he faces (Jake Shields is a terrible striker, so St. Pierre opted to stand and strike with Shields and just defend against Shields' wrestling, instead of taking it to the ground and grappling with Shields aiming for the submission, which is Shields' specialty). Playing safe, playing smart. It's rational and practical, but it's not really impressive at all is it? In fact, a number of people would call it boring. And that's one of the reasons why people don't really find Polt's victories over MMA that amazing or impressive. MMA on his matches against Polt couldn't adapt after the holes in his game were shown and taken advantage of, which threw off his whole gameplan. That's basically the whole story.
A lot of people (me included) wanted to see Polt and MMA going at it in mid-game or late-game battles with army micro battles, tactical defense maneuvers, feints and so on, much like how Polt vs TOP went. We were expecting great, long drawn-out battles going back and forth showing the players' talents, focus, skill and endurance, but all we got were very quick games (though if I recall, there was that one match where MMA had tanks and was going up against Polt's marauders, which is as close to what I'd refer to as a "real" mid-game).
TLDR: MMA's fans are either fair-weather bandwagoners jumping ship or just very angry or disappointed at MMA's performance and are either trying to take out their anger on something else or are just clicking their tongues and shaking their heads in disappointment. Or maybe jumping into a new bandwagon (DongRaeGu's maybe).
Also words words words.
|
Polt > MMA (as of now) . End of Discussion .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
